 No, no, you have everyone now. I think that we'll be here. Dan is not attending today. Okay. Great. Okay. All right. We'll have to be Friday. 1st of September. 2023. And to the town of Amherst solar bylaw working group meeting. Thanks everybody for being here. We have a quorum. We have our two staff folks. And we can get. Started and we do have. Participants from the public. Numbering five at this point. So thank you. All from. Non committee members for joining us as well for this. Meeting. We will have opportunity for public comments. At the end, as we, as we always do. So thank you also, Stephanie. And Chris for. Pulling together materials and the packet of materials. I did want to also thank you both for working with Mike Warner. To update the GIS. Solar. Solar. Model or whatever it's called that we have a platform that we have for the solar feasibility. And, and Mike did add the additional layer that some of you might have been able to take a look at, which I actually was playing with last night. Found quite helpful for this. Being able to sort of look at. At parts at, at, at, at. All the other layers, but in combination with the size of parcels that are available in terms of small, medium and large. Parcel sizes. So thank you for the town. For putting that together. We have an agenda. Our kind of normal agenda today, but basically we're. Well, I guess to make sure everybody knows on the committee and in the public, we do have now an official extension from. The town manager to. Keep working. Towards this. Solar bylaw. Recommendation. To the town council. And our extension is to, until October 6th. Which is much needed, but still. That translates to just about a month. And so. We have a lot of work in front of us. And appreciate everybody hanging in there. And getting, helping us get to the end point. I think. We have sort of teed up. I think for today as much discussion as we can on two of the issues. That are of most. Importance or at least worthy of conversation. And deliberation on this bylaw, which is with regard to. I hopefully sort of finalize it. Our thoughts with regard to how we want to look at solar on farms. And then making additional progress. On how we want to look at solar and force. In Amherst. Let me also thank. Janet for her. Comments that were added to the packet. And thoughts that were added to the packet. And then also. Very much to Jack for his. His own, his thoughts. Both in terms of. Responding to Janet's comments and, and, and, and his own. And his expert. Expertise coming from his water resource. Committee. And background. So both of those are really good frameworks for us to. Have further discussion on, on these issues. So thank you for your efforts on, on that. And, but before we get into the, into the. Me to the material, let's. Stick with the other. The first. Part of which. I'll pause for a second. Chris. How are you doing? Hi, I just wondered if you had determined who was taking minutes today. Yeah. That's Laura. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Good. Yeah. We took care of that. So thank you. Thank you. Martha, did you have something before we get going? Yeah, I'd just like to make a request that you allow a little time at the end of our meeting to just. Look critically at what are the key issues we have left to do? What's the meeting schedule to get them done? Yeah. In fact, the meeting schedule. Is, is a topic that came up in. And yeah, we're going to have to address that. And look at that as well. So yeah, let's. We'll do that with the. When we get to the next meeting schedule and agenda. Okay. So we're catching up on the minutes. And we have two sets of minutes. That have been provided. In our packet. And the, let's do them chronologically. So from July 7th. We have now draft minutes for review and approval. Have people been able to have a chance to review those? And are there any comments? Recommendations thoughts or a motion to approve those minutes. And. Let me know if you'd like me to share them. Yeah. Would anybody find. Jack, would you like them to be shared? No, I'm just saying, I make a motion to approve. Before we do that, I just, these, these. Janet, you prepare. Prepare these. Yes. Yeah. They really, they're the long ones, not the Martha short months. No. Okay. No, I got, I just wanted to acknowledge that. And thank you for preparing these. So, but there is a motion to approve them. From Jack. Is there a second to that motion? I'll second. Thank you, Bob. Before we do that, I just, these, these. Janet, you prepared, prepared these. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Okay. And by voice vote. So please make sure you're unmuted. McGowan. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm, I'm my son's computers. You were unmuted and now you're muted. Okay. I'm going to skip. I'll come back to you, Janet. Breger. Yes. Hannah. Yes. Gem sec. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And now we have the minutes of August. 18th. That are. We're also distributed in the packet. And. For those, I'd like to thank Martha. For preparing those. And. Yeah. Brooks. Yes. And McGowan. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for preparing those. And. Would anybody like those displayed or are there any comments. On those. Minutes from August 18th. And if not, is there a motion to. Approve them. Jack. I'll move to approve of these minutes. Thank you, Jack. Second. Yes. I think Janet snuck in first. So we'll go with Janet's. We'll shake it up a bit. This time. We'll go with Janet second. Okay. And. The voice vote, please be unmuted. McGowan. Yeah. Yes. Breger. Yes. Hannah. Yes. Gem sec. Yes. And I just, I wanted to thank everyone for letting me drop out of the, of the note taking. I just a little bit. Needed to break it overwhelm. So. Thanks everyone. Did I say yes. Yes. Peggy. Sorry, Laura. I'm not trying to hurt you. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Brooks. Yes. Okay. Minutes are approved. For my agenda. Okay, great. Okay. So, uh, next up is. Staff updates. Um, and let's go. Uh, with that, Stephanie, anything. On your end. I do not have anything at this time. All right. Thank you. Um, Chris. Yeah, I just wanted to report that, um, two things. One is that Doug Marshall, the chair of the planning board, sent me a set of written comments, um, based on the planning board's review. Of the draft solar bylaw that they did. Um, forget when that was, I think it was August 2nd. So I will be, uh, looking at those and incorporating them as, um, as needed. Um, and the other thing I wanted to let everyone know, and maybe Dwayne said this before I came in, but Mike Warner of, um, RIT department, um, made some improvements to the map that interactive map that, um, we can use to see, uh, where feasible places are to put solar. Um, and he added, um, information about the size of the parcels. So you can click on the map, uh, on a certain layer and you get to a map that shows, you know, parcels that are zero to five. And then I think it's five to 10, and then 10 to 15 and 15 to 20 or something like that. So you get a sense of what are the small parcels and what are the larger parcels. And that was something that Dwayne had asked for. So that's all I have to report. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Um, okay. Um, Martha and then Janet. May we get a copy of Doug Marshall's comments? I mean, were they substantive or just a sort of wording? Um, yes, certainly you can have a copy of those. Yeah. I'll send them to you. Thank you. Chris, if you just send them to me, I'll send them to everybody and include them in the packet. Okay. Yeah, that'd be great. Um, I think Janet was on that as well. So, um, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, Let's go with any staff updates. Uh, Any committee, any members of, of aligned committees. Um, Just briefly from the ECAC committee. Um, We invite everybody to, um, Visit us at the, uh, Block party. We're going to have a table. The Amherst block party. I forget when that is actually, but it's sometime in September, I think. Um, September 21st, September 21st. So, um, Uh, it's always a great scene. Um, and fun. So look forward to people, um, Visiting ECAC booth there, um, amongst many other booths. I'm not sure if we have the swag to, to attract people, but we'll have some, some, uh, uh, good information for folks. Um, also, um, just from, um, The clean energy extension. Um, everybody here on this, uh, I can include you on an email blast. We did on inviting everybody to the solar forum, um, Western mass solar forum, virtual forum. Um, over four Tuesdays in September, starting right after labor day. Um, And, uh, Encourage, encourage you or, or, or, um, Certainly invite you to, um, join us for that. What is that? Solar form at, uh, four times remotely. What's starting. It's all remote. Yeah. It's all virtual and remote starting at the end of September. Laura, you should have gotten an email from me or, or actually from CE solar that came from. Yeah, look. Um, yeah. All right. Good. Any other. Staff updates. Okay. Any other, I guess, uh, we had a separate item for committee updates. Uh, so, uh, any, any updates from. Our liaison from the planning or water resources committees. Um, I think Jack will talk, talk separately about your comments and so forth. All right. Super. Okay. Uh, so let's then get into our topics for today. Um, And I guess, um, There's two sets. Um, one is, uh, that I'd like to cover today. One is, um, We've had some good discussions on solar and farms. Um, and, um, I think we came to some. Um, Settling point on that. Um, which Chris has now provided in. Bylaw language. Uh, and so I want to have some time today. To go through those and. Provide it and have the opportunity to respond to any of, of what Chris has put together for that. Uh, and tried to put. That to, um, To bed, if you will. Um, and then, and then we have the issue with, um, Uh, solar and forest. And I guess, um, We want to cover that first. Um, if I, um, because there's been some. Helpful, um, uh, Input from both Janet and from Jack particularly. Uh, we wanted to give other people opportunity to. Um, respond to those. Um, and I think Stephanie, what was the intent? The idea was to share these, share the screen on these. Um, I was, so yeah. So Janet had sent an email to the group. Yeah. Um, and Jack provided written response. Right. My concern is that. I think we need to. Um, I thought it would be easiest to just view the version with Jack's comments. Cause they include Janet's. Cause they include Janet's original with Jack's comments. Um, and review that document. Um, because. Um, I, I'm, I am going to say now that I feel that. We're treading on open meeting law violations when people are commenting and on each other's work via email outside of this meeting format. So I think we're covered if we. Share this document and you both have an opportunity to. Uh, comment on what you wrote and your responses, Jack. Um, I think that would probably be the best way to handle it. So I can share the screen. Thank you. Thank you. And then, and use this as an opportunity for. Um, Janet and Jack to sort of make, bring their points forward. Uh, but also, um, have other people, um, Provide thoughts and comments and their own, their own thoughts on this. And I think the idea here is, is, uh, To get us in a position where we can then sort of think about, okay, what is the framework we want to, um, move forward, uh, with, with Chris, uh, with regard to the vital language itself. Um, and I think one of the issues that. Will be raised or we want to consider. Um, and, um, Um, Martha, I know you've had some comments on this as well is, um, Is whether we need to have. Language specific to force. Uh, or whether the. Um, Um, Um, I think that, um, Quote unquote restrictions. That we find pertinent to force can be covered in. Um, appropriately in other sections, uh, particularly with regard to stormwater management. Um, and soils, uh, and so forth. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, Martha, but that, that, um, that's, um, not something we can, we can, um, Uh, sort of bring to the, to the, to the discussion as we look at. Um, um, Um, Um, Janet and Jack's, um, Uh, Um, contributions here. So. Stephanie, if you. Um, sure. Can do the sharing would be great. Okay. You should be seeing this. August 31st. Yeah. Okay. So, um, You know, I, I guess I leave it to you doing as to how you want to have, um, Janet and. Jack respond to this, or maybe Jack wants to just give a quick overview. I will say that both documents are part of the online packet. So if members of the public are interested, these documents are both in the online packet for public access. Yep. And I don't see Jack's red stuff yet, but I presume that's. So that's further down. I just didn't know if Jack. Okay. There we go. Yeah. Right. Exactly. Yeah. So we could just start here. Um, go ahead, Jack. Yeah. I mean, I can, I can. You know, do the intro part and then. Um, Have Janet provide her. Her viewpoint, but so I just, you know, with the, do you want me to. Yes. With art off. Okay. So, uh, or Janet has her hand up. Um, well, Let me just hear quickly from Janet in terms of what, how, what her thoughts would be. I mean, uh, you. Do you have anything you want to say to start Janet or should we get. Yeah. If I could just. Um, so. These aren't my comments. So. What I had at the beginning of the memo I sent was my ideas based on. What Aaron jakes had written. And so it's not like. I'm not an authority on drinking water recharge. I'm not an authority on drinking water recharge or forest sequestration, or how groundwater, you know, rainwater moves. And so I didn't put, I said what I, this, but I wrote was a summary of her comments. To the drinking water. The white, the Amherst groundwater, but whatever that long committee is. And so I don't really want to get into like a back and forth of that. But I just want to know that her comments, her summary comments and her, her information was important. I feel like it was sort of lost. A little bit. We had her come talk and we was, she was sort of peppered with questions about her job. And at the end of that, I kept on trying to ask her about. These comments she had written the conclusions and I said, you know, do you still have this opinion? And she said, it's not an opinion. It's based on research. And so I think that. That's why I sent these to say, this is what Aaron jakes had said. And we need to deal with them. And I, you know, I can, I draw, I myself through larger conclusions on how that applied to our work. But I don't want to, I'm not saying these are not my comments. This is literally a summary of what Aaron jakes comments, which was supported by a lot of citations to research papers. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's an important clarification. I think that was. Clearly stated in your memo, but important to, to. Make sure everybody's. Aware of that and the context of your, your, your memo. So go ahead, Jack. Yeah, I just wanted to say that, you know, Janet. You know, we're just having discussion here. She, she brought up some points that the. You know, Aaron's were comments were unique on, on the white paper. And, you know, I put in the segment there where, you know, kind of summarize the discussion of the water supply protection committee. Of our review of comments that we received on the white paper. And the majority of Aaron's comments. I suggested be deferred to here. With us. So, which is what we're doing now. So that's all, you know, appropriate. And that was a plan. But I just wanted to say that, you know, the white paper deals. Focus only on water resources and the potential impact. Of solar. On, on water resources, whether it be. You know, public water supply well private wells. And then also, you know, stormwater. You know, management concerns. With regard to, you know, surface water wetland impacts. We kind of looked at all that. But our main charge was for, because the water supply protection committee is more for the community wells and Amherst. But again, we have the expertise on that. Committee that we just, you know, we looked at all those things. So I just wanted to, you know, clarify. And I also, you know, I listened to Kate. Valentine's video that was linked. And, you know, kind of reread Aaron's comments. And then came up with, you know, what I have written here. But the, you know, the main thing is, and I, you know, I see this time and time again with regard to, you know, forest and their unique property in terms of protecting groundwater. But the, I just, I think that the point is, is that forests are undeveloped and undeveloped areas have that unique nature of not polluting groundwater. Or water in general, because they're undeveloped. And so aren't pastures and grassland. And forests and grassland are right up neck and neck in terms of their benefit with regard to water quality and water quantity. And I think that that that point gets lost. How important pastures are. And force. And it's really, you know, undeveloped properties are important to, you know, maintaining our water resources. To, to, you know, and then we kind of fit in developed areas, you know, where people got to live and work into that equation. So. And anyway, the main point. And when, which also is kind of buried is that force do take away from groundwater recharge. Because they have such a significant evapotranspiration component. Compared to grasslands. So. Which I call pasture, which could be agricultural. You know, or, or pasture, but I'm just calling forest pasture. So pastures have. The ability, they have a lower loss of precipitation to evaporate evaporative processes and transpiration. And it's just, it's just, it's just the hydrology. And that's just the fact of the matter. And so. I mean, I think that's important to note. And then the other point I made. In that introduction was that there are studies that show that placement of solar panels on top of a pasture. It increases the groundwater recharge. For that particular parcel. So. You've got it like a hierarchy. Force have the least groundwater recharge. And then. Pastures. And then solar on pasture. Has the highest recharge. So it just keep that in mind. You know, with regard to water quality. With that said, you know, the water quality aspects. I think our. Pasture and forest. The water quality benefits are, are, you know, pretty much on equal footing. Solar doesn't, you know, introduce, you know, foreign material. On to the developed property, but the materials that are brought in. Are fairly inert. They don't have, they don't leach chemicals. They don't have a lot of material. And so. Apart from that, or the battery installations. And that's, that's a different argument, which we have discussed and, you know, but they're highly containerized. I know Martha brought up the, the situation of York. And that, that seems to be like a narrow segment of the batteries that just weren't proven. And, you know, collectively kind of failed. The battery installed in Amherst, whatever. That manufacturer that, that model. But, and then, you know, and then, you know, we really were emphasizing how the, the. Negative impression of solar developments came from poor. Management of stormwater, you know, best management practices. Along with erosion control and just knowing what's out there initially and putting in preventative. You know, designs there to control. Run off. And that so it's like any other development project. It really needs to have eyes on it. And be built properly with regard to the management. You know, during the construction. And afterward. So that's the gist of, of. You know, what I wouldn't want to add, but I think we should have a discussion on some of the other comments, you know, that Aaron. Had and, and Kate Valentine. That, that Janet. You know, brought up. Thank you, Jack. Yeah, I mean, I think in my mind, it's sort of, I'm trying to, you know, break it down into. The, the, the. Construction period. And perhaps the, the most of the biggest vulnerability in terms of stormwater. Sediment runoff and so forth erosion. Is during that construction period and maybe the first year or two of the establishment of the. Of the ground cover. And maybe that's something to talk about in terms of it. Are there restrictions or requirements with regard to ground cover. And then separately, Jack, and there were some, there is some comments and. In what Janet put together. And, and, and Aaron and so forth with regard to. Buffer zones. With two and distances from, from. Water recharge drinking water recharge areas and then drinking and then private wells. And we can. Talk about that. And. And then there were some other questions that Aaron had sort of raised with regard to. In terms of the construction of other chemicals in terms of soil amendments or sprays for cleaning. Cleaning or herbicides that might be. Used for the. For the establishments of these ground covers and so forth. I think that's an issue we might want to take a look at. And have, and maybe have some expertise here. So those are sort of my thoughts in terms, but I'm not going to go into the categories of things to, to sort of discuss and try to see if we can. Put that together in a, in a, in some forms of, of bylaw language and restrictions or recommendations. But let me hear from, from Janet. And then anybody else who wants to sort of make a comment or express their thoughts on. Janet's memo. I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be compiled from others. And then Jack's. Comments as well. Go ahead, Janet. Thank you. Thank you, Jack. I appreciated those clarifications or just. The information for sure. I wonder. One of the things I was wondering, and I actually reading my memo, which I wrote quickly before I left. And I wish I had written something else, which is. You know, I was thinking about, you know, you know, you know, there are, there are wells in along the bike path that you could see that we share, I think with Beltertown. And then there's this huge area of protection, which is the Lawrence swamp. And I think beyond that, because that's the recharge area for the wells. And so. One of the, and I might be a little bit. Behind in terms of revisions. But one of the big concerns I had was. Not just saying, I wasn't worried about runoff from panels. I was worried that the entire recharge area for the private wells was not protected. And I kind of, I'm not assuming that, but I think there's probably, it probably covers a lot of that forest in the area. So is that mapped? And, you know, can we, can we pull up a map and say, you know, this section is on well water. And we should protect the recharge area, not just for quantity, but for quality. And also with the idea that we don't, you know, until you figure out with the recharge area, you don't know what you're affecting. And so do we, can we pull that up on the map and say, all these homes are on private wells. And not just protecting like a hundred feet from the well, but the whole, what we think the recharge area, has that been looked at? Because I think I saw some language saying that. You know, protecting the aquifer recharge protection district and the watershed protection district. So I just wondered. Do have we protected the recharge area for those wells? And, you know, what, you know, where, where, where are those wells? Let me make my, my understanding of this. And then Bob and then Lara for sure. One, I think, I mean, the Lawrence swamp swamp, there's. That's protected area that is not going to see solar development within the region that the town. And maybe the state has designated as the recharge area. The private wells is a separate issue. My understanding is there are rules and regulations, particularly with regard to septic systems, which seem to be the most risk to those wells. And there are rules and regulations about distances, I think a hundred feet from those to protect. That purpose. And I think what we need to discuss is there, is there any reason to believe that a solar array would be greater, greater risk. To these wells than a septic system that's. Can be fairly close by. And then also to get to your point of what are we protecting against. According to Jack, which seems reasonable, you actually get more water. Because less is taken up by the trees in this case. And there's. And what can we do? And what. What is there anything we need to do with regard to. Concerns about contamination of the ground water. Beyond erosion control and so forth. But. And, and there doesn't. And the question of whether there's any, any concerns about potential leakages contamination from the solar array. And the battery system. So I think, I think, Dwayne, what I'm trying to say is the water recharge area. It's, I'm not talking about contamination from the Ray, but alterations in the water recharge area. You know, in terms of the quality of the water. So that's what I think that's what Aaron is saying is that there's going to be impacts. To the recharge area. And maybe I'm, so maybe we should go down to, it's not just, I'm not worried about hazardous materials coming off the rate. I'm just saying. That this water recharge area isn't protected in a whole. Again, but it isn't protected from what, but let's hear from please. So I do have quite a bit of experience working in forest hydrology and rural pools. I think that the restriction of protections that we, the regulations we have for septic systems are probably more than they're the most potentially hazardous. And they're, if we meet those with private wealth, we're more than adequately meeting any possible threat from solar. But as far as Janet, I mean, what she's asking is impossible. Every well is different. I mean, the soil conditions, the groundwater, it's impossible. You'd have to do some kind of tracer study to figure out what the recharge area is for every individual well in town. That's not going to happen. And I think if we just use the septic system restrictions, we'll be more than adequate protection for, and I don't know how many groundwater wells drinking water wells there are in the town. And I mean, I think that's an important thing, but I think the existing regulations that protect them from septic are more than adequate. Thank you. And appreciate, you know, the expertise and experience you have on that. Laura. Yeah, I just want to say, so I appreciate Bob's comments and expertise here because that's certainly. And I have expertise, but I want to clarify one thing. So my understanding. If you can speak just a little bit louder. And what the attorney told us was that it's all about public health and safety. And that we can draft, you know, the bylaw to protect public drinking water, but that going in so much to protect not that we wouldn't want to. And legally speaking, for printing individual well water sources does not fall into the public realm. And there's actually been case law, but I'm understanding correctly. Massachusetts where an individual well, they had concern it would be impacted. And I also just say that, you know, coming from the solar industry. And I have, you know, there's no runoff from solar. Incredibly benign installation, especially in comparison to looking at other things like commercial buildings, you know, residential complexes parking lots. Actually, you know, going so far to protect individual well water is outside of our jurisdiction. So, thanks Laura. All right. Martha. Yes, I just wanted to respond to Laura's comment on, you know, saying that private wells were an individual thing. I took a zoning workshop actually a year ago or so in preparation for this committee. And the emphasis there was, yes, you, you weren't supposed to tailor zoning to say one individual or one individual's property. But if you had a neighborhood if you had a group in some particular category that was perfectly legal and in this case we have one corner of Amherst up there in the northeast corner I live in south Amherst you know it's somewhere way up there. That has this special category of having private wells. And so I think that is a case where the town does have an obligation to protect the quote health safety and welfare of those residents as a group. I mean that's not to, you know, say one way or the other about our discussion here. But I think then when we get down to the bylaw, I think we just want to kind of look at whether we set any particular limits on size or limits on setbacks or you know there aren't too many issues really when we get into the wording of the bylaw I think. But I think as we go through it step by step we'll see the places where we might want to discuss a specific number of a limit or something. Yeah, yeah, that's all. Thanks Martha. Jack. Yeah, so just to follow up. The mass DP, you know, prior or, you know, anticipating you know the smart program in the state, you know came up with this guideline with regard to, you know, solar panels and perhaps support of pumping stations that support the community water supply wells. And so, you know, this is a mass DP looking at state groundwater and the state and the state is in control of his groundwater is not federally control the state has responsibility for, you know, being the steward of groundwater, but their document. They already have a zone one, which is 400 feet protection which severely limits what can be built within that zone. And basically what they said was, they would prefer that this solar not be built within 400 feet. And that was similar to anything else basically within the zone ones, but then with that, you know, outside 400 feet, the solar, you know, would be acceptable. So that that's a guide to document that very detailed in nature. So that was one guidance that we had when looking at private wells and you know when, and then the point I made, you know, in this, this letter is that a private well takes pretty much like a teaspoon of water into a swimming pool size of what a community well takes so just think in your mind when you're when you're when you have a little straw. And you're taking ground, you're taking water out of a some sort of container and the the area of influence of a private well tends to be very small but as, you know, and that's where I say the zone of influence so that 100 feet, you know, put that in perspective that's, that's a lot when you think about a community well being 400 feet. And you're taking, you know, 1000 10,000 times less water, you know, the 100 feet is is protective, but I think that we left it out there that it would be somewhere between 100 and 400 feet that we would recommend within this bylaw, in terms of the zone of protection for for the private well. So, I think that's what I want to say. I'm not and then and then also just add to what Bob said that truly, you know, for a molecule of water, you know, where that camp comes from that that actually enters the well. You know, it could be, you know, further than 100 feet, for sure, it could be miles. But overall, the majority of the water comes from, you know, close by, but especially when you're talking about bedrock, you know, bedrock fractures. The movement in bedrock is so complex compared to, you know, an overburden well, a dug well that takes from, you know, the Santa Grail walker for the or the till or whatever it's drawing water from. But I figured after we're talking about this, I, we can go over the comments or I can even go over the comments that Aaron had building because they're worth discussing, I think. But we'll finish this discussion first. All right, good. Appreciate that. Okay, Janet and then maybe we can sort of figure out where we want to head into in terms of actually thinking about what we want to have in this bylaw. I was trying to lower my hand. I'm on my son's computer and I was going to, I agree with Jack. Let's look at her comments. And I'm just kind of wondering, like, with Bob and Jack, like, if there's private wells all in this area, does it make sense to protect it all because they're all drawing from sort of the same area. So I'd love to look at Aaron's comments and I'd love to figure out how to undo this hand. So there it goes. Well, how about that, Jack, just in terms or Bob in terms of, okay, so now we have numerous personal wells and I'm not sure what numerous is but there's a number of them up there. And they're each, they're each drawing from their local region but who knows exactly how far but there's sort of a matrix of them. Does that start becoming a little bit more like a public drinking water supply or how would you sort of think about that? They're spread out but there's several of them. Okay, so the history on land development associated with parcels that have on-site, you know, a private water well and an on-site septic system. The basis for why a lot of our lots are, you know, a minimum one acre, two acre, sometimes have five acres. But that's all based on on-site management of water. So that particular lot basically can be self-sustaining based on the amount of recharge that comes on to that property based on, you know, on the annual rainfall basically. And then also giving buffers similarly to, you know, the 100 foot, you know, necessary. So if you have a 100 foot buffer then, you know, that's 200 feet wide, 200 by 200 is a one acre size property. So that's sort of like how all that fits together of why these single family lots tend to be seem to be oversized, right, with one acre. You know, why aren't they a quarter acre sort of thing? But that's, it all goes back to a hydrologic argument way back in the 70s, 80s of how that came to be. So that's a little backdrop on there. So with that said, the lots are already kind of sufficient in size to provide the level of protection on a lot by lot basis. However, we are aware that they do have water quantity issues because they're up on the hill and they have reported, you know, problems there. So ironically, you know, what would be a good neighbor in terms of increasing recharge is what I just stated does know not force. So, I mean, ironically, but anyway, I think they're, they're, they're good and you know, we wouldn't want to put a something that is going to withdraw a lot of water in that vicinity. And that's the only way we can help that, that neighborhood. I think eventually the town's going to get, you know, water and sewer up there. But there's too many other things on their plate right now to consider that because it is going to be a expensive capital project. So that's all on that particular topic. All right, good. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Jack. So, would you mind, Stephanie, just blowing that up just one notch. Okay. So, you know, here we're talking about mature and old growth forest and it made me, you know, think of Kate Valentine's video that there's something special about force, for sure. There's a lot of continuity of these things. What I, the takeaway I got from her video was that, you know, segmentation is something that impacts for us. And, and then so there's, you know, there's extra value for having if you have a significant size, you know, force that you kind of want to keep that intact and not kind of chop it off and that sort of thing. And then mature and old growth. I mean, I don't think we have, well, we don't have an old growth force and and Amherst is my understanding but if we have, you know, mature forest. Those are those are all, you know, they're important for sure. But just going through her comments their height infiltration and percolation and moisture. Moderate storage of water and shallow soils fairly abundant water storage and deep soils. Moderation of peak flows during extreme storm events sustain low flows during dry seasons provides critical ecological and societal functions, such as filtration of drinking water. You know, the thing is that undeveloped pasture, pretty much provide all those things as well but they have a different set of unique ecological and societal functions. So, it's more undeveloped land versus develop land that's where these things that that's the positive of land, if it's undeveloped, it has value for sure. So, I don't know if anyone has any questions on that. And then, so the clear cutting impacts. We have listed increased mobilization of nutrients and water temperatures increased light increase suspended solids and streams increased erosion increased nutrient load on streams and negative impacts on water quality. So, you know, certainly there's, there's a lot of truth to to some of these. And it depends, you know, clear cutting happens by virtue I think my understanding is management of force. That might clear cutting might happen, but it's in small, smaller regions and then you have growth that you know replaces that sort of thing but here, I think from our perspective we're looking at, you know, converting force to to pasture. So, yeah, things will be, you know, changing certainly the the temperatures are going to be higher. From a from a force to a pasture conversion, definitely more light. The the suspended solids and streams is more a temporary aspect that would be managed by, you know, the erosion and control measures. So in that conversion. Same for erosion. And, and then the water quality aspect is, again, I question. You know, if you have, if you just going from, you're not putting in parking lot you're not putting in septic systems you're not, you know, putting in dry wells. The impact on water quality is, is insignificant if if there is any basically I think when we're looking at clear cutting. So, and again, you're increasing recharge groundwater recharge in these areas. When you cut or cut. Anybody have any questions on on that. So, and then the clear cutting of our watershed, you know, because so this I just a little bit out of context and no offense to Aaron, but it, it just doesn't make sense in the reference I just pointing out that it. So I don't I don't really know what to say about about this but it's a change right so clear cutting is impacting. And it's, you know, it's been done for hundreds of years. The nature, you know, bounces back. And, you know, yeah, it is it is what it does but this article this is. So that that was based on climate change and you're looking at drought and what's drought going to do to, you know, certain regions and, and that it wasn't really focused on force, but anyway, Janet you have. So, this is what you said about what you said before so what I took away from the Kate Ballantyne is that forests and probably pastures do a better job in terms of water quality than a stormwater management system. You know that's kind of the, the, you know she did the physical showing of, you know, water that had been, you know, purified by going through a wetland or a far system versus what you get from a stormwater management system. So that's one point and I wondered what you thought of that. And then the other, I'm sorry I lost my second point to stay on that one. Yeah, well okay so for the stormwater there's a couple of things that are in play there the stormwater is always has the goal of preserving, you know the peak runoff of pre development to post development. So it has a, it has a mission there in terms of knocking off the peak flows to be as they are, you know, in the current day so that's where these detention or retention ponds and swales that allow infiltration and that that's where all those come into play to preserve that and that is. And that's and that's so that you know so the real situation that we would be concerned about is that we have stormwater management because of the increased runoff from developed surfaces like pavement and things like that. Overall, I think the way water sees a ground mounted solar array is a pasture. Sure there are drip lines around each of the individual panels, you know the six foot by three foot panels, but that that dissipates in averages out and you rarely see any. I don't think any erosion occurs from, you know, thinking your roof line, you know, dripping your house. That's a lot water these these solar panels are much smaller, and they're just not enough energy of the water running off in the solar panel to actually a road soil especially you know there's vegetation and there is vegetation on all the ground mounted solar fields here. That I think is all I can say about that I'm not sure if there was something else that that was intended in that statement about, you know, stormwater management systems not being ideal. But they work for, you know, one reason it is controlling runoff we don't want flooding off off the site or sedimentation running off and streams and things like that. So, Jack, so I think what they were saying was filtration of rainwater through natural like through the forest is better. It's a better job of removing things and clearing the ground cleaning the groundwater than, you know, a clear cut or an array. So do you know what I mean it's like their the filtration has a better result in terms of water quality of the groundwater. So I understand what you're saying about stormwater management systems because we do that all the time it's just kind of controlling the flow. Yes. So, again, and I would say, you know, pastures, you know, they have a, you know, the root system within the grasses, the filtration of the soil, basically do the same thing I mean the differences that the forest have the canopy that retain a lot of water that directly evaporates back into the atmosphere never gets to the ground. And that sort of thing and during drought, the root system of a tree is much deeper and will draw from the water table. And it's, you know, drought response situation where as the grass, it just goes kind of dormant effectively dies but renews itself. You know, I'm not a biologist but yeah, the magical aspect of force is the same magical aspect of pastures in terms of how it is able to kind of buffer the chemicals within precipitation because we still have acid rain, you know, so it, the water, you know, needs to pass through soil to buffer itself and get the pH right. And, you know, filter out other trace contaminants that are that is in rainfall. So, pasture force, but they both do, you know, a good job. Okay. Great. Thanks, Jack. Keep going through this of what you find important to. Okay, so the ground mounted photovoltaic impacts. So increased shading, reducing rain and atmospheric deposition that that's got a backwards there. The solar panels will increase groundwater recharge due to the shading. Basically, so lower temperatures, less evaporation. And then the wind, you know, I've not, I've not seen anything published about this being, you know, a factor but I'm sure there's there's some maybe measurable effect, you know, like off a lake. Potential alteration of key ecosystem services and plant soil processes. That's a different matter, obviously, you know, if there's, you know, critical habitats associated with any, you know, parcel, that's going to change with a solar development. So that always needs to be, you know, mapped out and characterized separately as part of the, you know, permanent review process. You know, no doubt. So significant modification that I believe that soil water content and water, water holding content or something then and soil temperatures significant. The temperatures will go up. You know, but if it's a force to pasture change, yeah, the whole habitat sort of changes significantly that there's there's no argument about that changes in microclimate evaporation precipitation. True. Yeah. And then the last series. Yeah, so, you know, each parcel is different. You know, so, you know, there is, there is, there is change and then I guess, you know, it's the job of the permit granting authority to take all the information in what we have for guidance is usually these, you know, they're wetland is the wetland buffer being honored. Is there a critical, you know, wildlife habitat associated with it? Are there other things? All those are reviewed currently for any, you know, land development, you know, project. So, I think that's, that's all I got to say if there's any questions. And there might be a little bit more. Stephanie. Okay, it's important to note that vegetation soils and water are all interconnected and changes to vegetation soils will undoubtedly impact nearby surface and groundwater quality. Not, you know, depends what that change is. I mean, again, that's, that's why there's all these reviews when we have a conservation commission, the planning board, zoning board of appeals. But, you know, in general, what we're talking about is introducing new hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and oils and that sort of thing, which don't belong there in the first place, and having that being released to the environment. That's where, you know, the degradation happens. And that's those sorts of things are not associated with solar arrays. And many infiltration storm water best management practices are inappropriate to sites in areas of groundwater and surface water protection. Okay, so I'm just seeing what I wrote here. Depends on how your logic setting applies to developments that involve the introduction of, yeah, so again, you know, you look at the processes, you want to control the runoff. So that's not exasperated, you know, versus what it is currently, and then you don't want it introducing pollutants into the groundwater or nearby service waters. So I think, you know, I think we're pretty good here in general for the solar array type of projects that we're addressing in our bylaw. And then that last section, I, I really don't, I don't think that there needs to be any sort of soil investigation associated with solar array projects. I really don't. Now the MEPA threshold is something that maybe someone else can answer, but that, you know, certainly we need to be consistent with, with MEPA. You know, within our bylaw, which I'm sure Chris is taking care of. I think that's all I have. I want to thank you again, Jack for pulling these thoughts and experiences together to share with, with the group. Really helpful. Any feedback for Jack or questions for Jack or, or comments. I'm sorry, I don't have my raise hand feature. But I, in just in looking this, I think the, the bottom line for at least me was way at the beginning and I'm sorry if I'm giving anyone motion sickness by moving this document, but I think the point was that Janet made a kind of recommendation in here. And I think this is the, of all of everything that you just reviewed, I think this is the bottom line and Janet, I don't know if this is the proposal that you still want to make for this. I just wanted to point it out, because I think really this is the, the bottom line of what Janet was trying to convey and Janet again, I'm not trying to speak for you. I just wanted to get back to this kind of summary of recommendation. So you can maybe address these points and then maybe move on from there. Yeah, I appreciate that Stephanie and that's where I wanted to go was like, okay, so what do we have all this really permanent information and some science based information. And where do we go from here so we could start with Janet maybe you throughout your recommendation for a framework will get a sense of that. I'd like to sort of think about okay what are the, what are the, what, what if any are the special provisions we would want to have with regard to force. And, and what are those, what would those be, or are there, are these provisions well covered under other parts of the bylaw that would be universal universally applied. Yeah. So, I, so my recommendations were based on me it's pretty, pretty much what I've said is that we have an unmapped, you know, drinking water recharge area for 5% of the population. If something happens to that we they don't really have an alternative. And so I would love to pull up the map and just look at the area that we're talking about because. And so the also is that this has been a proposed forest reserve for decades I think and it's in the. It's in some map I have of, I think, based on the, I know I'm so smart this morning but it's based on the open space and recreation plan as a suggested forest reserve. It's not a big area of town but it's really has a critical resource for drinking water for the people living in it and also it's like our only forested area and as we hear over and over from the state, this is what we're supposed to protect and expand. So I just thought, there's a lot of importance to this area, why not just implement the plan anyway and then implement the state plan and implement the climate action plan which is protect your natural working lands. And so I just thought, let's just take it off. It's not a big part. But I also think can be pulled up and say, oh, there's 65 or 130 households in this area. It's also potentially can be more residential development. And that, you know, one of the things that everybody's been saying is like, well, you know, why are we treating solar differently than, you know, residential, you know, development. And it just sounds like maybe we should just take that off as a wreck and recommend town council protect this area for its ecological services it's drinking water services. It's, you know, so, but is there a way to pull that up and just get a sense because I know we can do a map layer of lots, which I think pretty much correlate with a house. I also, you know, so I also don't, you know, one of the issues for me was the uncertainty. I completely understand what Bob Brooks is saying is that, you know, if you were going to map that stony rocky area and how water travels underground. You know, we'd never be able to do that so to me when you have uncertainty and an important resource. I would err on the side of protecting it for being a little more comprehensive instead of less and living in a sea of regrets which we do now for probably any. Bob. Yeah. Okay, so I did respond to Stephanie about this but it was inappropriate so I'm going to try to reiterate. First of all this for I did look at that on the map and somebody it looks like somebody took a magic marker and drew an oval in northeast Amherst I mean it's has no no legal back it's just somebody drew an oval on a map. So it's just kind of made up the other thing and was because in that same packet we had the attorney's letter and if you read the first answer in that letter. It says we he recommends we should not just by fact by. We should not just prohibit solar development in a zoning classification or in broad areas and that's what Jen and suggesting here that we just draw the take this oval and say okay no solar there just by fiat and I don't think that's really what the attorney says we should be doing and I don't think it's appropriate and it's not even illegally recognized area. Appreciate that. Martha. Okay, I think I think maybe it would all become clear if we start stepping through Chris's latest draft for the for the forest provisions and so on because it might be that what we want to do is in just in a small region limit the acreage or make the set back a little bit bigger or I think that people get worried about what happens during the construction process because that's maybe more challenging and has more, you know, soil disturbances and so on than the actual we don't want the solar panels get in but maybe if we start stepping through the actual requirements now at this point we might be able to to get it all clarified do you think. Yeah I was going to maybe before looking at the language is just like let's lay out the framework of what we can all reasonably agree on, or at least. You know, recognizing that this is a recommend recommended bylaw to the town council they're going to do their own work on this as well. And that there is opportunity for minority opinions if there if there are any that we can, you know, I think this question of whether sort of a maybe an overall question of whether there should be some. outright restriction or prohibition I should say on solar development in forest or even forest within a certain region of Amherst. I'd like to sort of get some some agreement to move forward, how we want to move forward on that question, and then we can sort of say okay. If we don't have if it's if we're going to restrict it then the bylaws pretty easy, but if not, then. Okay, what are the areas as Martha you are laying out. What are the areas that we want to provide some restrictions around. So I don't. I hear Janet with sort of a proposal, maybe it's a straw proposal to to prohibit solar development in a certain portion in in forest and at least in a certain portion of the town. So my sense of the committee is that that's not a majority opinion to go in that direction. And if we can get sort of some understanding of that. Then I think we can then do consideration of Janet's concerns and all of our concerns, then move forward with how do we want to, how do we want to do our due diligence and appropriate sort of protections on some of the concerns. So let me just hear sort of responses on whether or not we want to. Again, this is all a proposal to the town council, but whether we want to propose in our bylaw that we sort of have an outright prohibition on solar development in forest in at least in a certain area of town. Laura, please. No, I was going to say I support that I feel like we we keep coming back to a certain set of issues and I think even an informal vote among the committee members I. I don't think it's so if the town of Amherst in general chose to protect chooses to protect certain areas of land from any kind of development. That to me is outside of the focus of this bylaw. And we need to focus specifically on solar where it's not our it's not our job. In my opinion to say, this is a special area. And as a result, not only do we want to restrict it. A broad swath of land and solar. But in fact, we recommend that we were restricting it from any kind of development of any kind in the future. That's, I don't believe that's our role. And certainly that's by, I heard from the attorney that when we, when we outright prohibit solar. We're opening ourselves up to a lawsuit. You know, the town certainly cannot afford a lawsuit right now with everything else going on. So I like your idea Dwayne of just taking, you know, reading the room and, and, you know, moving on because we already extended this another month and like to wrap it up. I'm sure others agree. Thank you, Lauren. Martha. And Jack. You asked for our opinions. I think, I think there's a range. I mean, I think that, you know, we've, first of all, in response to, to Laura, I agree it's, you know, outside of our purview to make a final decision. We've heard the pushback that why just restricted for solar when you could restrict it for, you know, all types of development. So we could still, you know, make a recommendation in our report or say that's in our report that some members feel that we don't want to just single out solar that we couldn't make a reason, you know, we could recommend to the town that if we want to restrict development on solar, it should be, you know, more general. Then having said that, I would say that the arguments about the forests are, you know, we have a range to consider we are whereas I might personally agree that in the area of where we have the private water wells, we might want to say, okay, that's a small area, we could just, you know, we prohibit the solar, or we could say, well, then maybe let's simply, you know, as we step through the document, consider the setbacks maybe make somewhat larger setbacks. In that region because of the, you know, disturbances during construction, we could say that we maybe want to set some limit on the overall size of the clear cut area in certain regions we have a range to consider and I would like to definitely consider some limitations in there. And then we have to remember that in the surveys, public surveys that have been done, you know, most Amherst residents value preserving forests. And so I think we should respect that and I think we should say, well, you know, there has to be some clear cutting, but we really want to limit it and see how much we can do to contribute to our solar arrays and Amherst by using other sources of land because our residents value solar. So, that would save. Okay. Now, yeah, good. Okay, so that sounds good and some of those things we might be able to take up if we progress to sort of like what are the restrictions we want to put forward so chat. So, moved around. There you are. Um, I would love to look at the map and look at the, but the section that we're talking about and see where the houses are because it might be all the houses are clustered in an area. And, you know, maybe Martha's right, like if you have a 500 foot or 300 foot thing, you know, no array will be built there and it's kind of a sneakier way of a dimensional requirement which Jonathan Murray prefers over an outright ban. Um, so, um, so if we can pull up that map and see what we're talking about, that'd be super helpful. Um, I'm, you know, the houses are concentrated around the roads and then there's lots of areas between the roads. And then, yeah, also, but if we that kind of remember how you were asking at, I think the last meeting or the one I did in July, like, can we look at the actual property lines? Like how many five and 10 acre, you know, parcels are available. So I think I just, let's look at it. I'm not sure if we have the logistics to do that the moment or the or the time. I want to sort of just get forward a bit and I think that's homework we can all do, because it takes a long time. I mean, I was on it for like an hour and a half yesterday, putting layers on and off. And it's really interesting. And you have to sort of draw your own conclusions, but it's really hard to do in a short period of time. Jack and then Laura. Yeah, I would just say that, you know, in concept, I'm with Bob and what Laura have said. And I think existing regulations take care of a lot of these things. Whereas, you know, I think a force are unique and special, I think, you know, that that should be established, you know, through some sort of program, but I don't think that's our charge to, to say that these woods are, to be protected when we don't have the legal authority to, to do that just, you know, that's, but I also want to stress again, up for that corner. Recharge will benefit if the force are gone. I mean, it's ironic, but I'm just so, you know, a solo development is not going to be detrimental with regard to replenishing water to the private wells. Up in that, you know, Flat Hills area. You know, that just can't really be a legitimate concern. All right, good Laura. And then Chris, and then let's kind of hone in on what we want to do. So, so obviously, you know, I think I made my opinion clear, but I also want to say for the record that I really do not think it's the spirit of this group. Jenna, you made a comment about including sneaky dimensional requirements. It's a joke. Okay. I mean, I, I don't. That is not what I signed up to do here. And, you know, I think the world needs more solar. I think climate change is real. And I also know for a fact that developing solar and Amherst, without any of the restrictions we're talking about is extremely difficult because of interconnection and capacity limitations. Okay, so that's so for all those who are truly anti solar, I'm not saying anyone here is, but, but just as the world exists as far as like our grid. It is difficult period. But, you know, I'm also so mindful of the more restrictions. I mean, more restrictions we have. In addition to the macro restriction, the less solar, if any, we are going to have in this area. And I'll make one more note, there are tremendous resources out there from the USDA from a number of sources that I've read over the years about how when you put a solar array on a piece of land. You are effectively protecting that piece of land from any kind of development for the next 40 years. And how that also has benefits. So the world is going to change significantly in 40 years, but I'm just saying because it's a static type of development. And you're not allowed to do anything on certainly the fence in area, but oftentimes the entire parcel. With the exception of now farming, there is a conservation benefit after the construction period to having solar development on a parcel plant. Great. Thank you. Chris. I just wanted to remind everyone that the solar bylaw. They may or may not affect the proposal for the shoots very road solar. The applicant and the landowner have have the right to file a preliminary subdivision plan followed in seven months by a definitive subdivision plan to freeze the zoning on their property and they haven't done that yet. We can do that up until the date up until the day before the town council votes on this solar bylaw. So, I wouldn't focus on that particular project when we're thinking about this solar bylaw we should think about the entire town and what do we want to do in the town and where do we have forests in the town and how do we want to treat those. And I just wanted to remind everyone of that that this may or may not apply to the proposal that is out there. And we should just think more generally about this. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. All right. I'm going to ask Janet and then Jack to go last and just anything that's new that hasn't been stated before and then I sort of want to move forward with sort of where we can give a Chris sort of maybe a charge to draft something for us next to review in detail next time. You know, Dwayne, you were the head of ECAC when the climate action resilience plan was adopted and it was adopted by the town council. And that really clearly states protect natural working lands for the ecological services, the air, the water, you know, all the good things. That's the state plan. There's a no net loss, you know, coming out of EOEA. We have, if you look at all those plans, including our own town plan, we have experts and people that sat down and all thought of that and came up with these guidelines or recommendations. You know, the two climate action plans, we have a state solar survey that says we have 15 to 18 times the amount of built environment that we need to support solar to meet our goals. We probably need more so it's good that it's 15 times, you know, not just enough. And so like Dwayne, like, I don't, to me it's like, I'm, you know, partly being a lawyer or just being in town it's like I'm a foot soldier like I'd like to implement these plans. And I wonder like, you know, you are the one of the authors or the lead on this. Is there any piece like sort of addressing Chris's comment is like, we're making a recommendation to the town council of how we handle our forests and they're incredibly important ecologically. How do we, how do we implement a plan by allowing, you know, 40, 20, 30 acres to be a clear cut. And maybe it's not just, you know, I know we I know the shoots very road is, you know, in the pipeline, but we have a lot of land up there. And even though the transmission lines are sort of limited to a certain area that could expand in the future so potentially that whole area could be a series of solar arrays, which Laura would applaud and I know a lot of people who doesn't comply with the state guidance, the state goals, the state policy or climate action plan. I mean, you were like I just, I don't know if this is too personal but you, you were in that plan and how do we implement that plan without actually protecting our natural working lands in some way, and just saying, this is really important. And it's sort of off limits or very limited amount of action there. Well, I'm not sure which plan you're referring to if it's if it's with regard to ecac I can talk about that I was not personally involved with the state's plans. But with regard to ecac. And I think generally for the state plan. Yes, we want to, we want to use the built and ecac is very keen on using as much of the built environment as we can but for, I would say for most, particularly looking to drive clean energy and climate and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to zero as with the state by 2050 and the development of solar at scale. Incredibly large scale compared to where we are now is. Part of that plan to confront our climate emergency. And and this this note this important notion of net net zero land loss doesn't mean that there can't be any land loss to solar. Because while there is plenty of the built environment there's also expectation that much of that is is well technically feasible not economically or market feasible or bound to be extremely slow in its development time frame compared to the reductions that we need to meet. And the fact that there may be need for to use land forested or otherwise for solar. Absolutely the state and the and the and the town should also be engaged in how can we preserve other land. So that there is no net loss it's net loss that's important for the plan not no loss. And so, you know, my, my sense is that with the, I mean, the town of Amherst is the key an example we put a lot of land aside as I understand it for conservation and encourage them to continue to do so. If they do want to move forward with the forest preserve. That's another in my mind that's interesting and interesting idea but a different. Question really and process and likewise for the state. Absolutely the state needs to be working with DCR with the communities with landowners increasing incentives but to put more and more land in preservation. But that doesn't mean in my mind that doesn't mean that in areas where it makes sense to put solar in terms of moving the market, where the distribution lines are and where interconnection can happen that that those should be prohibited. Okay, hopefully that's helpful Jenna. I don't remember the or see the order but let's go with Stephanie and then Jack. Really quickly in the time I do want to move forward. Yeah, this is really quickly. So, Martha lost her connection. She's trying to get back in I just wanted to let you all know that so I was just talking with her and trying to help her. I just want to point out that the comments been made a few times, and Dwayne obviously had a very significant role in the climate action plan as did all the members of the ECAC. And I just want to be clear that Laura Drucker was the chair at the time it wasn't Dwayne he wasn't the leader of the committee. So I just, I'm no offense to Dwayne as in his leadership capabilities but it was Laura at the time. Also, I want to be clear as I served as the project manager for the development of the climate action plan that we worked with a consultant. And so the framework and a lot of the information that was included in the plan actually comes from the consultants work. And it was the committee's responsibility to review what they had provided. And yes, it's true that, you know, they definitely supported a lot of what was in there but I will say, this was probably one of the more controversial pieces. So there was some discussion and I don't know that everyone was like 100% fully in agreement with the final recommendation within the plan regarding this piece but I just wanted to state that so it was clear. Thank you for that context, Stephanie. Yeah, I definitely wasn't the author or the, even the prime author or, or lead of ECAC at that point or today for that matter. And nor do my comments that I just made me to reflect opinions of ECAC but we're just mine. Okay, Jack. Welcome back Martha. I just wanted to, when Laura mentioned the interconnectivity, interconnectivity issues that that there are some factors that where we, we do want to fight climate change and we, you know, we do want to have solar installations in there but that interconnectivity is really a big one. And, you know, and it's not like there's going to be wholesale, you know, conversion of, of force that just it's some areas afford that to happen. And they're very limited in nature, plus, you know, having the proper size of the parcel to begin with. So, you know, those are just important things to note because I've seen so many projects kind of just you know, waste away because of the interconnection issues. So, that's pretty much it. Thanks. Thanks, Jack. Let me, let me make a proposal and then try to close out this part of the meeting and go to scheduling our next meeting and then and then the public comment. Well, Chris has provided a draft that's in our packet today for for Forest Land special requirements, and then also one for farmland special requirements. I want to, I think the farmland one is ready for us to review with her as written next time. The forest land based on I don't want to open that up now because we don't have time. And I also think I'd rather ask Chris if she's so willing is to revisit that for draft to reflect today's discussion. And my sense is that the draft should be should should cover a number of different things and then we can sort of look at that and then determine whether this is really special requirements for forest or whether it's basically relevant throughout. It seems like we need to have. We won't have any outright restrictions or prohibitions, I should say, but then certain particular provisions with regard to buffer, whether they're a buffer, just like we have for all solar in terms of distance from roadways and so forth and and and and the butters. But to the extent that we want anything different 100 feet is I think our normal restriction or buffer for solar. That seems to be in line with the septic systems for these wells of concern. Maybe Chris can sort of draft that and we'll use that as a starting point and discuss whether we want to tweak that number. And then the restrictions. Again, this is probably universal throughout but areas of areas that have sensitive be habitats of importance. I forget exactly when the terminology there, endangered species and so forth to have restrictions on that or prohibitions on that. But that's again I think universal. Certainly provisions with regard to construction and measures for storm water control and so forth. Again, the, the, the special provisions for forest would be if there's anything different and more restrictive that or different pertaining to doing this in force. I think one question maybe do we want to have regulations with regard to what solar projects in in what what was forest are required to do with regard to ground cover. I don't know if we had that otherwise. And then also with regard to to jack's point is having a good ground cover of sort of to mimic a pasture land to make sure that there's roots root systems throughout and so forth that provides the water control and filtration and so forth. And then also, which we didn't really get to today is just anything with regard to use of chemicals. I've been in some of Aaron's work with regard to, and maybe Laura has some insights here but, and I don't know anything but apparently there was some concern about cleaning solar panels with some potential chemicals that may be unnecessary or at least not not anything that we want to introduce into the force and pasture land system. So anything along those lines. That's sort of the list that I came up with. Does that sound. I'll go to Jack, in terms of anything, any, any comments on sort of this, just this process to get to a draft to review next time with Chris, or to the outline or ideas that that Chris should incorporate in this draft. Those are good Duane. And you thank everybody at the beginning of the meeting, I just want to thank you for for all that you've been doing chairing this so you're doing a great job. But I wanted to say that in terms of bringing chemicals in. If they're biodegradable, that you know, definitely want to state that because there may be something like like antifreeze is very, you know, does not sustain itself in the environment. I don't know, for example, but I don't know anything about that cleaning but I guess I had a question with regard to the setback and would the setback be to where the panels are or to the fenced area, or, you know, certainly there's an access road that will. You know, that obviously would be exempt from from the setback. But what did Chris have in mind for that. Yeah, so I have in mind that it would be to the fence. And there may be a road on the outside of the fence or there may be a road on the inside of the fence, but the fence seems to me to be the limit of the solar array. So that's what I had in mind. Yep. Okay, that sounds right to me. Very good. Thanks to a Janet. Um, so, Jack, I had, I just realized this, I've been, I had collected some stormwater management rules regulations for solar systems, like from NREL, the National Renewable Energy Lab, which I think is federally funded and some other university and I think I sent them to Chris. I sent them to you. So can I send those to you and how do you look at them, because they were sort of saying that water, you know, coming off a panel is different from, you know, coming off a subdivision. So I just realized I'm sitting here I haven't sent that to you so I'll send them to you. I have no way of assessing that versus the normal thing because it's way out of my wheelhouse. The other thing is I'm glad. Yeah, I know where this feels slow but I, you know, I read Chris's stuff last night on a handheld things I'm traveling. And I really didn't I read through Jonathan Murray's thing really quickly so I think I, I don't want to give a short shrift to that because I read it really fast. And so I think having a little extra time to absorb that on a maybe a bigger device will be very helpful to me. Super. Thanks. Just if protocols better for Chris to forward that to Jack, that'd be, let's, where is it okay for Janet to send that straight to Jack. I think I think she should, she should send it to Stephanie and then Stephanie can send it to everybody. Yeah, and I'll add to the packet. I think I sent it to Chris and I'm going to have trouble. I'm going to be on the road for the next week finding that but I'll see if I can find that email on my phone or something or I'll work with Chris on it. I need to reiterate what is NRAM. It's the National Renewable Energy Lab and then I think it's sort of another set from the University of Wisconsin or Minnesota. And I had, I mean, I just realized I should have sent a copy to Jack. It's just coming up. Another what with regard to that university what is what are you talking about. What type of document is it. There's stormwater management standards for solar panels versus the usual suspects. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. We're running out of time so let let us continue on the agenda. Sorry, that got buried somewhere here. Yeah, which is basically the next meeting. And agenda items. I think the agenda items are really to then to next time we don't need this discussion. We'll go into assuming Chris has the opportunity to look at her draft language for farmland and forest land. And then we're going to be starting to be in good shape. All questions. One is we have, if we stick with the every other week meeting. Then we have to left, which seems tight to me. And I'm wondering whether there's appetite for meeting every week for October, September, and then we can have a party on the six. I guess virtually. Or, or, or finish things up on the six. Or maybe we should take the two weeks 15th and then try to meet the 15 the 22nd and the 29th to wrap things up. But then this is all caveat and also with a request from Dan. Who is now not available. Given that has responsibilities that you mass at this time on Fridays he's not available for the Friday meetings. And whether there is any potential to find another time for this. That's the end of the end of the committee. Unfortunately, we don't have Dan here today to know what his alternatives are. But apparently this time doesn't work. Anybody else have conflicts with this time on Fridays. Bob muted. I can meet every two weeks as planned, but I have other volunteer activities. Actually mean quite a bit to me. I can't just meet will you know me for the next three weeks. Yep. Yep. Okay. Yeah, let's. Well, let me ask. Our other times on Fridays. I don't know. Again, I, this was just a quick email from Dan. So I don't know if he's available other times on Friday, but if that is the case. Is there an option to meet later in the afternoon on Fridays. Any, any, anybody not able to do that late, late afternoon, later afternoon Friday. Okay, why don't we, why don't we offer that up to Dan. If he's available. And then we can get back to everybody with regard just to a meeting time. Still on Fridays. For. For the, for the next, next meeting. Who can I interrupt one second. Can we have a specific timeframe like Fridays. One to three or two to four. And be more specific. Well, just, I did want to hear a little bit from. Dan on that, but I would, I would be. Well, even one to four, like, does he have time? I mean, maybe that's an option is let's keep with every two meeting every two weeks. Which would give us two more meetings and then maybe a final one on the six. But meet for three hours. Okay, but let's okay. So let's, let's think about two to four. Let's think about two to four. Yeah. But let's not, we won't, we won't commit to that yet until I, we hear back from Dan. Of whether that alleviates his conflict. Okay. Okay. I'm going to get a little bit more quickly. More than than Jen and then I want to hear from the public. I mean, the only other possibility would be to have some extra meeting. At some point that we promised was no more than one hour and dealt with a very specific topic. Period. Like, you know, we haven't discussed the battery storage much. I don't know if that's a concern to anybody else of what we put in, but that's one category I can think of, or maybe something else will come up and we could say that would be just a good start, but we'd all think about. That one topic and make it efficient. Because I don't think we could possibly do three hour meetings with brain dead after two, I think. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, it would get into the problem of scheduling such meetings. Janet. So I think one of the things that slows us down is, you know, like if we were going to look at Chris's draft, it's, you know, we got it yesterday and we're all kind of looking at it. And I wonder if we can get things earlier. And if people could sort of like have comments on the section that maybe Chris could highlight, you know, like in red. Well, you kind of were doing that anyway with comments. And so I think it's very useful. To have some time to read stuff. And then also it's useful to read other people's comments. So I think that might make the meetings more efficient than all other people's comments. But I think it's just kind of seeing something. You know, with a short notice and I don't blame Chris for this in any way. But, and also just look at other people's thinking it just, I think it would make our meetings more efficient because it's really hard to see something for the first time, listen to somebody. And then we're workshopping language. To me. Okay. Great. Yeah. Agreed. We'll leave that up to Chris in terms of how. Soon she can get us drafts. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This is, is, is, is in our packet. I actually read through that. I had a couple. Suggested edits and so forth. Or, or comments. And if we can all do that. And come prepared to the next meeting with. Specific. Areas where we have a question or, or, or a suggestion. I don't know is if there's a mechanism to share that all, I don't know. I don't know. We could, we could see an earlier draft with people's comments on it as long as it's also posted to the public simultaneously. Yeah, but that's, yeah, I that satisfies open meeting law. And, you know, as long as. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So let's all just prepared with. And, you know, maybe Chris can do her read through these sections are not long read through, but we are sort of well prepared. And we're not reading it along for the first time. We're well prepared to say, okay, this. This would like to add this over here or whatever, just be real prepared to do that. I just want to quickly say the reason why I pushed back on that is also because it means waiting on getting people's comments. And we don't know when we're going to get everybody's comments. So if the timing wouldn't really work. Okay, Laura. I agree with that everyone said, um, I'm prepared to the meetings to discuss, but I'm, I think we're at a point right now and I'm speaking for myself and what I hear others reflecting in the group that many of us have other commitments. And that continuing to draw out our, our timeline, which has been extended twice now is challenging. And for me, what I'm experiencing is we, we spent a lot of our time in the meetings, um, Going down these different tangents, um, that sometimes are the interest of, of a minority part. So I think, I think we got to stop it. And I think we just got to Robert's rules, take it to a vote. Who thinks it's important and move on because I, I feel like we'll be sitting here in January, um, talking about extending the bylaw working group more and more. Um, so that's the pattern I've been noticing. Um, and I don't necessarily have a solution except for when the month feels like we're, you know, um, circular, having a circular conversation, raising it and figuring out what move past that. Okay. Yeah. Appreciate that. I think we're down to brass tax certain next meeting of, of, uh, um, finalizing the language in these sections. And then I'd like to anticipate getting through force and farms next time. Uh, and, uh, and, and then, um, there's a stormwater section you had as well, Chris. Um, and then maybe use the last meeting, two hour meeting, uh, to if Chris can, and she's done some of this already. Uh, so to put everything together. Uh, and use that to sort of fill in any gaps. Um, and, um, use Robert's rules if we need to, uh, to, uh, come to some consensus. It comes some final final version that, um, is ready to be, um, uh, offered by this committee. I really have to go. Bye. All right. Thanks, Bob. Okay. Let me, um, see if there's any input from the public we have, um, and appreciate you, everybody listening. Um, and so if anybody from the, uh, attendee, attend other attendees would like to make a comment. Try to limit to two minutes or so. Um, please raise your hand and Stephanie will move you to the. Appropriate room. Yeah, great. Okay. Renee, you are able to unmute yourself and thank you. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Um, just, just a few comments. I just want to note that it's one 28 and we're just starting the public comments and already a member of your committee has left. So that's a bit of a concern. I would also like to ask the question, how many people from the public have been on this call? Um, I, and I would actually request going forward that somebody just tell us at the end of the meeting. I think Stephanie's done that before. So I think I did mention that at the beginning, but there's six. I am particularly concerned about one comment that was made by, by someone from the committee in saying that the health safety and welfare of the public does not include people who are on private wells. Well, I find that completely outlandish because when you have a house with a private well, it's only because the town has allowed that the town has allowed a septic and a well, and it makes absolutely no sense to me that we're not going to, um, that, that that is not part of the, what we need to protect in terms of the water. Um, and I just think that that sentiment and that spirit is so not in the, um, in the spirit of the common good and what the town, if the town allows you to, to buy a piece of property and put a private well on it, you, you get it's inspected, you, you jump through hoops and then we're going to say that that has nothing to do with the health safety and welfare of the town that only public water does. So I found that particularly offensive. Um, also in, um, KP law, Jonathan Murphy, Jonathan Murray had said that because I keep hearing people say no restrictions on size. And again, I'm concerned about that because he has said that, uh, it's reasonable to have maximum lot size limitations and forests and that he had also said in parenthesis that the attorney general had approved of a 10 acre maximum. So, um, I hope moving forward, we will consider all of that and not just immediately jump to no restrictions because I think that's very concerning. Um, so it just, uh, you know, I, I feel like as somebody who's lived here for over, it's lived in Amherst for over 40 years served, served on, served on committees, ran the human services network to just be disregarded like that and say that because I have a private well that I'm not included in the, the gen, in what this town is protecting because I think that's a very, um, slippery slope for the town to maintain a position like that in terms of, um, the, the risk that, that it, it provides for people who are definitely part of the public. So, um, thank you. All right. Thank you, Renee. Yeah. Um, Stephanie, is it appropriate to hear some feedback from the committee members? You're muted, Stephanie. I don't think this is meant to public comment is not necessarily have to be responded to. It can be responded to, but it doesn't have to be responded to. No, it's up, it's up to you as, um, I, it's primarily up to the chair who's running the meeting quite honestly. All right. Well, uh, we have volunteers to make that comment. So, Jack. Um, thank you. I, I, I don't know if it, if Renee was speaking to what I said, if I said anything that to the contrary, obviously all water, uh, ground waters of the Commonwealth are part of, you know, the concerns of public, you know, welfare health issues that I met. So, uh, I think what I said was that the, uh, Well, I'm not sure where, where that came from. Quite frankly. Anyway, um, Jack, Jack, it came from me. So, yeah, yeah. And then we'll go to the next comment. Okay. Yeah. So, Renee, this doesn't necessarily reflect my public, my personal opinion, but certainly my understanding, which could be incorrect, um, from Jonathan Murray and certainly, um, because of my familiarity with, with the law in Massachusetts was that, that word public health was not relegated to one individual household. Not to say that, um, that's not a concern of the town. Um, but when, if we were drafting bylaws to protect one or if we, or if a community prohibited the development of a solar farm, because, um, there was concern of it impacting one well, my personal opinion aside, my understanding is that would actually not be legal. Um, so that, that's, that's where that comment came from. Yeah. Okay. Appreciate that, Lorna. Um, obviously we're, we're concerned about, um, all the individuals in the town. Um, Steve, you're up next. Hello and, um, have a hope you guys have a great afternoon after you get out of this meeting. It's a beautiful day. Um, this is Steve Roof. I live in South Amherst. Uh, I am on the ECAC. I am an employee at Hampshire college, but my comments here are my own. Um, first I wanted to comment on something that came up in some previous meetings about the efforts of the academic institutions in town. There were questions from the public and also on the committee members about what are those campuses doing? So I did a little digging and this is easily found on the web, but the university Amherst college and Hampshire college have either declared carbon neutrality for on-campus emissions. Um, that's Hampshire. We, we have achieved carbon neutrality on, for our on-campus emissions or have pledged to do so, both UMass and Amherst college have pledged to do so within about 10 years. Um, at Hampshire, we've achieved it with a portfolio of solar that is saving the college money. Um, UMass and Amherst are spending 10s of millions of dollars over the next 10 years or so to reach those carbon neutrality goals by, um, efficiency approaches, but also changing over their district heating by steam to a lower temperature water and electric heat pumps. So for those people that were curious about that, the educational institutions are making huge investments of time and money and they're expecting to achieve carbon neutrality in 10 years, about 20 years sooner than the goals of the town of Amherst or the statewide goals. So I hope that, hope people find that encouraging that the colleges and the university are doing a lot of work on that front. Um, second related to today's meeting and discussion, I was pleased to hear that I think many on the committee are recognizing that renewable energy from solar is far, far safer for our environment and our health and our welfare from fossil fuels. I mean, it's easy to get into the nitty gritty of that. Oh, a solar field might affect groundwater. Um, maybe that's a hypothetical. I, you know, we haven't seen any evidence that they do. Um, but we absolutely have evidence that burning fossil fuels is literally killing us. 350,000 people in the US die prematurely every year. Um, and the healthcare costs from fossil fuel pollution, 800 billion, billion dollars a year. Um, that's from a Harvard medical school, um, medical school study of a couple of years ago. Um, more locally that I just read a report by NBC Boston. Um, news that state records show that there are an average of 120 heating oil spills. Per year across Massachusetts, those are direct threats to groundwater and must be cleaned up. Often at homeowner's expense to the tune of a hundred to $150,000 to clean up even, even a few tens of gallons of fuel oil can require that kind of a cost because of its high potential for groundwater contamination. Um, we've seen neighborhoods in Massachusetts destroyed by natural gas explosions and fires. We've seen that recently in other nearby states. So when we use fossil fuels, all of us, we are contributing to these harms, even if we maybe aren't feeling like we're personally harmed. So more solar and less fossil fuels will definitely make our environment better and make us healthier and safer. Um, and Amherst, we've already got more than 30% to the town area permanently protected and more if you count the agricultural land under protection. So we are meeting these goals for forest and land preservations that have been brought up and mentioned several times. We have already met those goals. Um, and what we need to do now is to meet those other goals, which is to develop renewable energy infrastructure. That will allow us to achieve the goal of no more fossil fuels. So, um, I'm encouraged to hear many on the committee recognizing this. I just wanted to repeat that from my perspective that renewable energy is far, far safer for our environment than our fossil fuel use. So thank you. And good luck wrapping up your work. Thank you, Steve. All right. Thanks everybody for hanging in there. We have one more comment, uh, uh, Eric, um, thanks for being with us. Uh, thank you so much, Dwayne. Um, I have to say, um, Renee's comment, uh, which was based. Um, was, um, prompted by Laura's comment regarding the protection of water really only, uh, um, covers, uh, the public water supply. In, uh, January of 2021. Uh, the, uh, a meeting at the meeting of one of two that year of the water supply protection committee. I asked as a well owner. I said, um, my water comes from. And, um, Lions wit and the chair of the committee indicated that we don't know or it's not known where. The water supply for wells comes from. So it, um, I am a little concerned that, um, not only of Laura's comment, but of Jack's comment that it generally comes from close by. Um, the water supply protection committee sentiment was, but I also in at, at that meeting, I asked well, um, particularly about private water. And I was told that it was the board of health. That has the jurisdiction for private wells. And well water. And, um, uh, when this committee, the solar bottle working group was, the water supply protection committee. The water supply protection committee. The water supply protection committee. The water supply protected was built. By, um, the town manager. One of the seats on the committee was to be held by the board of health. And they declined. So in combination with. The comment that was made today. The comments that the water supply protection committee. Does. Has no jurisdiction. Over well, probably well water. And it is the board of health. The board of health is on the committee. Uh, and I was told by a, I was told by a, a, a, a, a homeowner that relies on private well water, which by the way, the flow rate in my neighborhood is quite low. I'm concerned about who is looking out. For our wells. And secondly, I'm, I just, you know, I feel like a Colombo. That, you know, I'm not a hydro geologist. statements made today just defy logic, that if you clear cut a forest, erect acres and acres of panels, the temperature goes up, yet I would assume that the water evaporates more quickly as a result of the heat sink that that array creates. How can we have more water as a result of it? I just don't it seems to me that there have been a number of contradictory statements made today, and I, you know, it's not comforting, frankly, as a private well owner to be assured that we're going to have more flow. It's not our water is not going to be affected. Well, I at that I really I think what we are doing is doing a risk analysis. And if and I wish that somebody could, you know, assure me in very, very non risky terms that I will have water and well, well, no pun intended into the future. So thank you. I thank you. Thanks, Eric, for that. And let me let me see Jack hands up and there's some specific questions there. So why don't we have Jack reply to those? Yes, if you have a specific question you would like to ask, Eric, I can respond to it right now. But overall, I think what I said that, you know, long term, you would have more groundwater recharge in an area that is adjacent to your property. If it were a pasture, whether that pasture had solar panels or not. Versus forest, forest, take up a lot of water, put it back into the atmosphere, take it out of the ground. So that's a science. And I think there was something else in there. But if you want to ask a question to me, please do. No, I mean, I raise the issue of the fact that you suggest was said that the temperature under the arrays increases. So my question is, and I'm again, I'm Colombo here. I just don't understand how if the temperature rises and the and would seem to me that evaporation would increase. That would also limit the amount of water that is recharged. And secondly, these are panels that are impervious. They're not they're not pervious. It's not the it's not as if the they're the like the rain water will just penetrate through the panels. So I'm just kind of again, questioning again, I'm not a hydro geologist. I'm just a plain old citizen on a well. No, I very valid concern. And it makes sense to me as well. But what it does, it's balancing in terms of the hydro geologic or water budget, it balances a lot of different factors. Temperature is one of them. But the fact that like within a forest canopy, a lot of the water doesn't even get to the ground to be able to recharge. All right, it gets caught up in the the the story, the the canopy, sorry, of the force. And and again, the the grass in a pasture, the root systems, they don't really they're not drawing from like the water table like trees are. So trees will prevent water from going rain from actually contacting the ground in the first place. And then it also has deeper root systems that takes water out of the aquifer, whereas, you know, a grass or pasture does not have that ability to do so, unless the water table is very shallow. So temperature does matter, but all these other things matter. And in the end, you have a situation where pastures have higher ground water recharge on average than a forest, every place different. But on average, that's the case. Great. OK, thank you, Jack, for that explanation, Eric, for the for the concern for sure. OK, we are over time and appreciate the the committee sticking in there, the staff and the attendees, the public, just if you didn't hear me before Renee, we have six attendee attendees from the public. I think I that was the same number at the beginning. So you all stuck with it and appreciate that. And with that, stay tuned from Stephanie with regard to the exact time of the meeting next time, but it'll be next two weeks on Friday, either at the normal time or at a two o'clock time. And we'll get that information straightened out real soon. OK, enjoy the rest of your Friday and long week and everybody. OK, thanks a lot. Thanks, friend.