 Hello and welcome to the October 25, 2023 meeting of the Amherst Conservation Commission. The time is 7.04. Present are myself, Michelle, Laby, Alex, Hor, Andre, Giviera, Jason, Doherty, also Dave, Zoomek and Aaron first staff. Absent currently are Bruce and Laura. Oh, I see Bruce in the attendees, so I'm promoting him to panelists that we do in fact have Bruce. I keep, okay there we go. Now can you hear me? We can. Hi Bruce, welcome. You got stuck in purgatory over there. That's right. So I actually read purgatory recently with the other two on either side of it. Kind of an extraordinary story to read and translated from Italian. Well, hopefully that wasn't as bad as where you were, or it's first time. All right, let's get started. Chair report. I have no comments today, so I'm going to hand it right over to Dave Z. Good evening. Yeah, I'll be fairly brief. I have a lot of updates for the commission. Good news we do have a new assistant land manager. Anthony Perez is joining us he was our summer staff member this, this summer and did a wonderful job excellent job and we had an interview process where we haven't had a number of candidates and he was selected so he is really hard working he grew up locally loves the trails and he's a very experienced and he, I believe he started officially about a week ago so you may have met him out in the field but he's been at the community gardens at Ikari Ridge Mount Pollux and everywhere and so Brad border week our land manager will be training him. He's got a number of certifications that he needs to get to run some of the equipment we have from, you know, tractors to a dump truck to brush hogs and things of that sort, and get all checked out on chainsaws and thing, you know, and safety of course So we're excited to be back kind of at full full capacity here in terms of our two staff people and yeah I'll work with Aaron. I know your next couple of agendas are pretty heavy but maybe in December or maybe your first meeting in January. We can have Brad and Anthony come in and do kind of an annual, you know, field report. What what were the projects this summer. Clearly we were down staff but some things were definitely accomplished and it's a chance for you all to get to know them and to ask them questions about what's happening out in the field. Other quick updates you know it is that time as we kind of race toward winter. Anybody's guess what kind of winter will have but we will be out there brush hogging fields. Doing equipment maintenance before winter putting putting some of our equipment away to be be well cared for over the winter but a lot of focus on open field mowing, we're also teaming up with with guest or trust on the on the boardwalk down at the pond loop trail, you all approve that amendment I think last meeting of the meeting before. And that work got underway this morning I think they are putting in the the pilings if you will the, I call them more polls than pilings I guess that will support that 110 foot long boardwalk on the pond loop trail there. We're out in the field this weekend it's great weather for them to get that work going, and Brad and Anthony we're both working with Luke, and another gentleman from Kestrel who I'm liking on his name right now stew. And the four of them were working out on that and there'll be a lot of volunteers converging on that site over the next week to 10 days. They expect to have it done in about two weeks so it'll be nice to have that pond loop re reconfigured again so people can use it. So those are the quick updates, a lot of field work. And with weather like we're experiencing we can get some things done here before the snow flies. Happy to take any questions if you've seen anything out there have questions on anything just let me know. Okay if I see on Alex's hand up. Go ahead Alex. Yeah, do what's the status of buffers pond from a water quality standpoint. Um, great question. We do not test buffers pond any longer we test until about Labor Day I went a little longer this year, just because we had such warm weather but I typically stop testing around Labor Day. Tests are expensive to run so we don't have a designated budget for buffers pond that is, you know I spend a couple of thousand dollars on tests every summer and that that funding isn't a yeah it's not a line item in my budget it just needs to be done so we stop testing I think we are certainly having some staff meetings talking about buffers pond and really kind of saying, you know, talking about bringing a group together in January to really look at the water quality issue and puffers and it's time to kind of take a more comprehensive look at that upstream. And then upstream potential impacts of dogs of agriculture of potential septic system failures what not so, but that's kind of a status right now. I don't know if people are still swimming there but at this point in our minds the swimming season is over. And it was not a good year with all the rain it was our worst year in terms of the number of times it failed I don't have that at the top of my head but I would be surprised if we had one month of safe testing their safe test results. Excuse me. Okay. Let's move on to review of minutes approval from 1011 23. I think we're just looking for a motion to approve the 1011 23 minutes. Second. Alex. Hi. Andre. Hi, Jason. Thanks, Bruce. Okay, I abstain I didn't review them. I think we've got a quorum on that. Okay, land management updates. So we actually have three inner folders there was a late coming one I'm not sure if anybody saw it, then there was to one for Wildwood conservation area and one for Mount Pollack so first on the list is Wildwood conservation area. Do you see anyone Aaron and the attendees that would be representative. Okay, so. Did everybody get a chance to look at this one. I'm sorry to say yes. Okay, I read it. No one else. Okay. All right, well, I guess I mean I read it Aaron did you did you want to give a two minute on it or should we just. I think you're more. Sure. So this is a researcher from the University of Massachusetts it's a pretty big study. She were very grateful for the. She supplied her methodology and a project summary and offered her permits and she's approved by the animal use committee. So she wants to do a community foraging avian study on. Well, one of our research sites will be Sylvan Woods any mass and one she's proposing to do the Wildwood conservation area on Amherst conservation lands and one elsewhere. So what it basically entails for those of you who didn't read it they'd be setting up this nets I don't I probably in the early winter, November, banding 50 birds I think. So three bands of the birds respiratory measures like doing the measurements on the birds, some kind of respiratory tests inserting a pit tag so that's like a little piece of metal. And then anyway, I mean, I don't want to go into her methodology. But it would, I guess, I want to draw attention from the to the fact that this is a four year study. And the applicant is proposing to put artificial feeding or bird feeders on conservation properties for five months of the year. It's a total of four years. So, I think that my interpretation of the land use policy is that this isn't exactly consistent with both leave no trace which is what we usually ask of people using our lands. And also introducing artificial food onto a conservation land has sometimes cascade community effects, and can attract species that wouldn't be there it could be a trap. It could attract predators, attract bears in the winter. So I have concerns about having bird feeders up on our property for five months of the year for four years. That's my position on it. I also think that UMass has other properties that would be a very suitable alternative such as Cattle Forest, and possibly the orchard hill would lot, which is near their other study site. So commissioners Bruce particularly if you reviewed it do you want to comment on it. It certainly seemed like a reasonable proposal. I didn't take as much into account what you just said in terms of the traction of other animals to the to the bird feeders like didn't account for that. So I take your point about that. I'm just curious the impact of the inserting the pit tag what that entails. I know that the applicant couldn't be here tonight but I don't know Michelle if you have any insight on that. So I don't I've never done that. Oh, they're also bleeding the bird so I mean her her references had a lot of references as to like, you know, the non lethal effects of these things. I mean, my concern I blood birds I banded birds I measured birds doing it in the winter is a little different because it's a different kind of stressor and you're holding the bird for a long period of time. But like I said, this is all approved by the animal use commit committee or commissioned so I don't think it's really our place to make judgments on that. I mean they're like going to insert a little pit tag and glue the insertion hole, and it's 50 birds but we have talked as a land use subcommittee about the you know, what kind of impacts to wildlife we're considering on the preserves. Anyway, I say a lot of hands up so I think Dave, go ahead. So, although I didn't I didn't review the proposal Aaron and I did talk about this yesterday and she kind of reached me on it. And yeah I don't I don't disagree with some of your concerns Michelle I mean I kind of had some of the same ones. So I think the nature banding is a whole different whole different thing. The bird feeders, you know, they, they do become attracted to attractive to both other animals but also to people. I will say that Wildwood conservation area, although it seems off the beaten path. I think that was the only area they proposed right is that correct I could be wrong on that. It's a pretty well used conservation area and we often have some activities down there that are not really consistent with conservation area use so it's there's more people down there than you think, I think four years is a long time. I would, I guess I would disagree I think a little bit Michelle in in kind of the rigid in turn, I find it a little bit more of a rigid interpretation of what research can happen on conservation land I mean, honestly, you know, one of the reasons Amherst has so much data on wildlife on on plants on everything is that we're one of the most studied communities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So, I just want to be a little careful that we not, you know, be so kind of cut and dry on on on those on on the kinds of research that can happen I mean we know we know about birds we know about salamanders we know about snakes. We have some of the most, you know, some of the largest areas of estimated and priority habitat because we've studied everything in Amherst because of the colleges in particular UMass so, but yeah I kind of agree that UMass has Orchard Hill, they have Cadwell Forest they also have the land off of the rifle range off of off of Northeast Street that they could do this in so I kind of share some of your concerns and maybe this might not be a great fit for conservation land. Thanks, I'm just to quickly respond to that. I agree that we know a lot about our animals which is informing some of our, you know, new management and planning. One thing I did consider in this is that there's no real conservation implications applicable to the management of the conservation lands and Amherst associated with this so that was something I took into account when sort of providing these comments to Andre. I was just trying to figure something out there I was reading through this while we're talking and I see that they're 1010 feeders. You know, I don't, I'm not a fan of, of having feeders out there either. It just seems to, you know, I don't know. I'm not, I feel like it's putting food out there where where birds shouldn't be getting it in a sense, even though there are neighbors out there who put feeders out and so on. I've taken all our feeders down because of mainly because of bears and also because they could, they could, you know, birds could get sick from all congregating in the, in the area of the feeder. So, I don't know. I'm kind of on the fence on this one. So that's my, just figured I'd throw that opinion out there. Thanks Andre. Alex. I'm just going to clarify on on a pit tag. A pit tag is the same thing that's in your easy pass. So when you go 70 miles an hour under the indicator on, you ask for example, it picks up a signal for bounces back from the pit tag that's in the easy pass. So in a bird, it's surgically implanted or in a fish, we use it in fishes. And then they go past an antenna and we can track them. So I'm not quite sure how they're going to use the pit tags. I didn't read the proposal. All I wanted to do is, is clarify what happens to the pit tag. It is surgically implanted. It's not a big cut in the skin, but it is wintertime. And the wound is susceptible to infection. I don't know whether they'd have to stitch it or not in fish. Depends on the size of the pit tag. They come in a variety of sizes. So that's just clarification on pit tag. The bird feeder, I again, don't know if they want to get birds to congregate where their nets are. But there's going to be a biased towards seed eaters. Unless they mix and sew it, and then they'll get insectivores. But if they're using bird feeders to attract birds they want to study, they'll have a biased for seed eaters. So they have a specific list of species, black cap chickadee, white breasted nut hatch, downy woodpecker, and tufted titmouse. All of which are seed eaters or can be. Yeah. So they're, they were going to band and pit tag them. And then do some measurements on how frequently they come in the feeder. So it logs, it logs their activity. So, I mean, go ahead and read the study. I don't want to try and summarize it. Yeah, maybe they're going to put an antenna, excuse me, maybe they're going to put an antenna near the bird feeder and that's how they know who's coming back. Yeah, but anyway, I think the issue here is, you know, the 10 bird feeders for five months a year on the conservation land. And I think we, you know, I've raised my concerns of people have commented, Dave, I see your hand up again. Yeah, you know, in all the years I've been doing this, I think, I think enough questions have been raised about this one and I agree with them and I, you know, 10 feeders in that small area. I think it's, I would recommend that we ask them to seek other land to do it on in particular UMass. There are alternatives, right? This isn't the only place. These are very common birds. It's not like they're studying a rare bird into your point, Michelle. Weird, not we, the town are not really going to gain much data or information that is helpful probably for the management of our land. So, I would recommend that we, that you vote to say no on this and encourage them to use UMass land. Another point about what Dave just said, there are actually two sites that they are, they already have one other site. There are two sites in Massachusetts or in Hamburg, only one site in Nebraska. So if they really want to have three sites, they can find another one and if they fail to get another one, they still have one in each town or one in each part of the country. So, I don't think it does any harm to say no to it. Thanks, Bruce. Andre. Yeah, I, I agree, Dave. Just for clarification purposes, the RFID pit tag that's going to be implanted in them, Alex will, will give will be read every time that they go to one of those feeders and it's also apparently reading their data as well for part of their study. So, anyway, but I'm. Okay, yeah, I think interesting study I think given the alternatives offered by UMass and, you know, they sort of the, the, the general principles of our conservation lands and the impact of 10 Peters that I would recommend that we vote no on this one. And unless anyone has any further comments paying for a motion to deny. I'll make a motion to deny CLU 23 dash 12 songbird research wildlife. Wildwood conservation area. I'll second that. Alex. Hi. Andre. Hi. Jason. Hi, Bruce. Hi. Okay. And Aaron, maybe when you relay that information, you could just list some of the alternatives that we consider. Thank you. All right. Moving on to Mount Pollux. This is for a painting group. A daytime landscape painting group. I hopefully everybody got a chance to look at that one. Personally, I don't have any concerns. Alex. Were you going to vote. Oh, sorry. I. Thank you. Okay. All right. Transitioning back to Mount Pollux. Does anyone have any questions about this one? Nope. Okay. Looking for a motion. I'm, I moved to approve a lane use application request CLU 23 dash 13 art at Mount Pollux. Second that. I'm going to second Alex. Hi. Andre. Hi. Jason. Hi. Bruce. Hi. And I'm an eye. Okay. So do we want to do Kestrel? It came in sort of. Late, but we've done this before. Yeah, go ahead and. Can I just give a little backstory on this? So this request came in last week and I didn't really get a chance to check in with Dave on it, but they. You know, Kestrel had applied for this two years ago and then. And they're hoping to do it again. It's, it's kind of short notice because they're hoping to start in early November. So they, I guess. And Dave might want to elaborate on this more, but the Kestrel has been having some conversations about trying to. Come up with like a long term solution and not have to have. A land use application every time they do this. But I just submitted it on their behalf so that we could get it in the queue and get it before the commission tonight for consideration. Since it's happening so soon. Thanks, Aaron, Dave. Yeah, I mean, really briefly, I think. You know, the commission approved this two years ago and then they didn't do it, I think. Last year they had permission to do it didn't do it for COVID reasons or I'm not sure why. So I think we were trying to try to look at this as kind of a rollover and say, the commission approved it if it's exactly the same. I know we put some conditions on it and I can't remember exactly, but I know Michelle, you had some, some, you know, guidance on a few things. I don't recall the specifics of that approval, but the thought was, you know, if the commission approved it two years ago, why wouldn't we do it again. I would like to in the future develop kind of a long term MOU with with Castro their site they're going to be. They are partners to the town and to the commission and and to conservation and they're going to be, you know, their permanent home is adjacent to the pond and the loop trail and the Mount Hoyok range so and I think they want to do this. So that's a whole research long term so in the future we can look at an MOU but I think in the short term, they wanted to do some banding this this migration season and I think so what's if they're not migrating already they soon will be so that that was all I wanted to add. Okay, and this is sort of a invitation to certain members of the, or the public, but it's not like a fundraiser. There's no sort of like money involved I guess that's just my question is this. This is a long term research banding station that we're looking to approve or is this a fundraising activity for guest trust and that's the only concern that I would have about what we, what we, you know, specify in our long term MOU for this. And if that concerns commissioners or if anybody has comments on that, because it does. It has come up in conversations about land use applications is the economic component. Can you address that Michelle. I mean if you have an answer I'm not sure if it's just something we asked them offline. Yeah we can ask them that offline and again I think this is just for this season this migration season, and longer term yeah we need to get into some of those details. I think my recollection and I didn't get a chance to review their their recent proposal but it's a rollover from two years ago. My understanding was they are part of a larger banding project for so what else so there was a, an ecological, you know data collection component to this, whether, whether they are inviting volunteers or members to come be part of this. And they often do that. I don't, I don't think they're charging a fee but you know donors make, or excuse me members make donations that forward conservation goals and objectives including the town so that's kind of all I know at this point but I think they're just looking for approval for this season and they'd be banding a couple of times in November. Yeah, I don't know if they go into early December as well. Anyone have any questions on this. All right looking for a motion to approve the kestrel trust for banding on is it on brook area. A sweet Alice sweet Alice conservation area. So long. Thanks Bruce. Bruce on the first Alex on the second Alex. Hi, Jason. Hi, Bruce. Hi. Andre. Hi. And I'm an I. Okay. Next up. Notice of intent for a mod development. Is it. Am hat. Am hat. Am had amourst. Yeah, sorry. Can we reemphasize again the change in the plan materials are due to the staff prior to. Yes, so materials are due the Wednesday. Prior to our meeting so full week before. Starting November first. That was our starting November 1st. Right. Okay, moving into hearing general procedure for fairness to all applicants. Each hearing has 20 dedicated minutes on the agenda, five minutes presentation by staff, five minute comments from applicants, five minutes for public comment or two minutes per person, five minutes for conservation commissioners or two minute each. For revisions, all plan revisions are acquired by the Wednesday prior to the meeting at noon. Starting November 1st and for all presenters, please clearly state your name, the address of the project you are representing as well as if you preferred pronouns. Okay, first up is a notice of intent. For am had development Corp for the construction of a parking lot and attention basin in the buffer zone to ordering vegetated wetlands at 28 green needs drive Matt 13 D lot. 29 and I'm opening this yes. Yes. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general bylaws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of the wetlands is most recently amended and article 3.31 wetlands protection into the town of Amherst general bylaws. Okay, Aaron, do you want to walk us through. Sure. So the legal ads been published. We got proof of butter notification. There was a site visit that was held on. I think the date of the site visit is off. I think that was the 20th. We have a DEP file number. There were some comments associated with this that all the documents were uploaded to your folder. So there's a couple of things just to make the commission aware of when I was the only one out on the site visit. There were some stability issues out on the site. I did notice that there was some erosion happening and just to give a little background on this. This project was originally this is the green leaves condo. Development and it was originally permitted back in 2004. The order of conditions expired and there was a portion of the work that was never completed. Basically this portion that we're looking at today. How it was discovered was that we had permitted a water line improvement and some work associated with that and a culvert replacement. And when we were out doing the site visit, I kind of stumbled upon this parking area that hadn't been stabilized. And so I said, you guys need to have a permit in order to finish this and that prompted them to file this permit. So if you look in the folder, I uploaded the photos. There were some stability issues. I can pull those up for folks to see if that would be preferred. And also I had some comments. Nothing really super substantial. I think my my biggest concern is that they get the site stable and try to get the pictures up so that you guys can see the stability issues that I'm referring to. If you haven't had a chance to look through yet, I'll just flip through them really quickly. So this is like a washout that's coming down and the material was going underneath the straw waddles. This is a plume of sediment in the existing stormwater swale that is being contributed by the unpaved parking area that's currently unstable. And there was a significant amount of erosion around this, this pipe, which contributes to the swale. This is just an example of the the area that's unfinished. And you can see the erosion coming off of the the hill slope and also you can see this plume that's settling into the the parking area. And that materials, what is washing down ultimately into the the swale. This is the upper area which has kind of become somewhat revegetated. But there's this unfinished driveway and this is kind of a bigger picture. The materials coming down this hill settling here and then washing down into this this swale that location. So I did communicate with the applicant about this problem. And they have come up with a plan which if you look in the updated materials folder for this project on one drive. They did come up with a plan to stabilize with some stone create a stone berm and put in some additional straw waddles until this permit is approved to try to temporarily stabilize the situation. I'm not sure if you want me to run through all these because I think I'm probably pushing five minutes already but I did send these comments to the applicants representative. Just kind of buttoning up some some issues on here. There were some missing stamps on the revised plan set on the stormwater checklist. Also, I asked for an operation and maintenance log to be filled out and there was some missing information on the operation maintenance plan pertaining to the proposed BMPs. I also just would like to get sign off from the town engineer on this because it is a previously permitted site that's now coming back to us and just to get a determination of whether it's grandfathered under the stormwater bylaw. And that's, I'll just leave it there and leave these up in case anyone wants to read them. Thanks Aaron. Jason, it's your hand up. Yeah, just, Aaron, you mentioned the correspondence folder the new correspondence folder updated correspondence following site visit. When I click on that it's empty. Was this the one a 2023 0826 proposed parking and stormwater management plan. No, but let me, let me, I'm not sure maybe it just didn't upload all the way and it got sometimes that happens if it's in the middle of uploading and it gets interrupted it doesn't get in there but I'll I'll make sure that it gets in there and I can pull up the plan so you guys can see it right now. Just give me one second to navigate to it. I'm going to need I'm going to need just a second to track it down if you want to pull Glen in I can pull that up while or Glenn Kravosky is the rep and he's in the in the attendees. So, if we want to pull him in and get him get his presentation while I'm finding this that might be a good idea. I keep trying to promote him to panelists and it doesn't seem to be working. Oh, he's declined. Okay, Glenn, well, if you'd like to say anything just raise your hand. Yeah, I appreciate the time to go through. What Aaron wants to show us, but if the motion is going to be to continue. We'll be hearing about this again. And the project sponsor. Is there a need to go into more detail. If, if the motion is to continue. Going away and on that Aaron or something. I mean, it's, it's kind of nice to give when we open the hearing give the applicant an opportunity to present and or if they have any initial responses to any of the questions or concerns that I've raised, but. I don't it seems like he's having some problems getting into the room. If, if we want to maybe give him another chance to come in and if, if we can't get him in, then maybe. And I think he actually declined to come in. So maybe he's just not. I'm not interested in talking. Oh, okay. So maybe we should just move to that motion to continue. Okay. Um, there enough. Um, and I'm, I did track those down and I'm just in the process of uploading the documents so they'll be available. To the commission in a few moments. Okay. So I'm looking for a motion to continue the am had development core for the construction of parking lot and detention and basin and the buffer zone to boarding vegetated wetland at 20 green leads drive at 13 D lot 79 to. Erin, see you've got your hand up. Just in case you want to take public comment since it's the opening of the hearing. Just a thought. Um, public comment. If anybody has anything to say on this, please raise your hand and look an eye on it. Okay, Alex, your hand went down back up. You have something to say. A second. Okay. I didn't make, I can't make the motion. So I need someone to do it. I thought you were reading a motion. I moved to continue the public hearing to 118 23. It's 745 p.m. Vending receipt of additional acquired information. Second that. Alex on the first Andre on the second Alex. Hi, Andre. Hi, Bruce. I see an I Jason. Hi. Hi. Okay. Next up notice of intent for the town of Amherst for construction of a handicapped accessible trail system and trail bridges resource area mitigation. And restoration activities work is proposed and bordering, bordering land of subject of flooding bordering vegetated wetlands bank riverfront and the buffer zone. Okay. Okay. Next up notice of intent for the town of Amherst primary lane map 19 D 28 lots 10 and 59. Otherwise known as Hickory Ridge. We're continuing. Okay. Does Dave or Aaron want to say anything about this before we move. I think the only thing I would add is that we're, we're going to have a meeting on November 8th. So we're going to have a meeting on November 8th. So we're going to have a meeting on the natural heritage program. They had some comments on the. On the proposed plans. And so Aaron and I have a meeting with them. I believe it's scheduled for next Tuesday morning. So we hope to come back to the commission at your next meeting on November 8th. Hopefully having resolved any of those questions and comments from natural heritage and be back with you on the eighth. And, and that extensively long email problematic. Um, I think they're all, um, I think they're all, they're all doable. We just need to talk through a little bit of their rationale. I mean, you know, it's been a long time since we've been in a meeting on the site, as we all know, wetlands. Bloodplain estimated priority habitat. We know we've got a lot of critters out there that, that, um, are, are important. So we've got to just make sure we. We design around them and protect them. Because we are. Inviting people onto the site in a different way than. I still believe that the way this property is going to be managed will still be better ultimately for the environment than a manicured 150 acre site. We're certainly not going to be doing that. We are not going to be applying herbicide, pesticides. We're not going to be mowing, you know, dozens and dozens of acres of land every week. So there's lots of reasons why this is going to be a positive, but I get why they are concerned. It might also mean that we, for instance, the loop trail might, you know, one of their recommendations is to move part of the loop trail a little further away from the Fort River, which makes total sense. And then there's no reason why we, we couldn't do that and shouldn't do that. And they made a couple of other recommendations on trails that we're going to talk through with them. So I think we'll get there and, and, you know, the commission will get feedback from both staff and from misty and at natural heritage. And as the chair of the local Friends of the Turtle Committee, I advocate all things for the wood turtles. Is that a real organization, Bruce? Dave, I'm curious how long has the golf course been sort of abandoned out of commission? Like how long has that place been fallow and 2019? Oh, that's it. I, yeah, I haven't committed that to memory, but yeah, 2019 sounds about right. Okay. Nature has taken its course out there for sure. So, yeah, I happened to interact with somebody in Washington DC last weekend and they have very fond memories and they started talking about Hickory Ridge as if it was still a golf course and I had to tell them, oh, you haven't been to Amherst in a while. Because it is. Anyway, all good. Okay. All right, if there's nothing else, I'm looking for a motion to continue. I move to continue the public hearings for 191 West Pomeroy Lane to 118 2023 at 750 p.m. Second. Bruce on the first Alex on the second Alex. Hi, Jason. Hi, Bruce. Hi. Andre. Hi. Okay. Next up SW it's a notice of intent for SWCA on behalf of the University of Massachusetts for the construction of a gravel parking lot and associated stormwater structures in the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland at lot 13 Olympia Drive map 8D lots 1516 and three. So it looks like we have another continuation for this. Okay. So I'm just going to go ahead and ask if we've received updated maps. It doesn't look like we have anything new in our folders. Is that okay, Bruce. So I drove out there the other day and Alex, the, all of that material that is on the, I guess it's sort of the northeastern side that we looked at is all still there. I don't know if Aaron knows more of it now that there was before. So whatever the attempt is that we're trying to make to get them to on their own move the stuff back from, from the access to the vernal tool is not hasn't happened yet. So I don't know if Aaron knows more, but it looks the same as it did. Looks worse. I'm not sure how far we should go into discussion without the applicant here. No, it's fine. Well, thanks for keeping an eye on things, Bruce. Alex. I was going to ask a question of Bruce about something else you might have seen but if you don't want to talk about it without the applicant, I'll put my hand down. I mean, that's my inclination is that sort of on par with what you guys think Aaron Dave. Yeah. Okay. We'll just, we'll just wait until we have a SWCA here to get further into it. Okay. Okay. All right, I'm looking for a motion to continue. I'll move to continue the public hearing for a lot 13 Olympia drive notice of intent to 11823 at 755 p.m. Second. And around the first Jason on the second. Alex. In Robert's rules, after it's been seconded. Is there opportunity for a question or discussion. That would have an after the first motion, but I'm fine with you asking a question now. Aaron in their PowerPoint wants to know if the commissioners want a third party review. And we didn't talk about that. Yes, I think. So I think there's there's definitely some significant updates on this one. And I think it's, it would be prudent for us to revisit this once we have. SWCA at the table. But yeah, there, there are some updates. And also there's, there's a PowerPoint that I updated, which is relative to the potential violations that. I had suspected on the site. So I would encourage you guys to take a look at that. That should be in the folder. Just to kind of familiarize yourself with the, I did a ton of aerial research and also I did a permit inventory for the property to determine what had been permitted and not. Thank you. Listen. I thought we had asked them to, I thought we agreed to do a third party over review. At least. Seven meetings is going back several meetings now. But as I recall, we, we requested that already. We did a show of hands to see where the commissioners thoughts lied, but we didn't make an official request for that. The, I mean, I don't know how what the applicants position is on requesting that, but. We didn't, yeah, officially make that determination, but go ahead, Aaron, if you want to give some more clarification. Yeah, after that meeting, there was a meeting of me Dave Z. The applicants and UMass and they requested, and I think they did request at that meeting as well to have an opportunity to do some more site due diligence. And so I believe that is in part why we're seeing so many requests for continuation because they were doing more site due diligence in terms of getting out there and collecting data and trying to get a more comprehensive delineation for the site. So, I think they wanted to present a more comprehensive delineation to the, to the commission at, and at that time, have the commission render a decision of whether to conduct a peer review or not. Just, that's what I know. Yeah, there is a like sort of a lot of contingencies on further information being supplied to us. So I think that's where we left it and it was quite a bit a long time ago, and I haven't received anything new since. But I would agree that we should at this point reach out to the applicant and say, you know, we have, we've gotten eight new applications in the last two weeks, which is a substantial number. And to say, you know, we're, we kind of need an update on where things stand and how much more time they're going to need just because it's taking up time on our agendas and has the potential to bog us down, especially on November 8 like the timing of it is just tough. Okay, thanks for raising the point Jason Andre. Yeah, I'll just add to Aaron's last point there that that you just made Aaron is that that earlier on SWCA did mention that that there did talk about the timeline and complain that we should have taken a look at this earlier. And now the ones who are postponing it is, you know, is UMass or SWCA so it'd be good to get this one moving along. Agreed. So maybe Aaron you and SWCA could have some conversations about timeline and you know what's on our plate coming up. Okay, if there's nothing else. Yep. Okay, looking for a motion to continue the public hearing for a lot 13 Olympia Drive notice of intent 118 2023 at 75 PM. Yeah, I think we did that we're just voting. Oh, sorry. Thank you. All right, we did do all of it. Okay, so back to the vote Alex. Hi, Jason. Bruce. Hi, Andre. Okay. Next up we have a request for determination for Mike Lephensky and Philip rich for confirmation of identified resource area boundaries and determination of whether delineated intermittent stream is subject to the town of Amherst wetlands by a lot and regulations at 167 and 187 she's very road map 90 lot 61 and 63. The next meeting is being held required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands is most recently amended and article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Amherst by laws. All right, I think we have Michael in the room. Michael, I'm going to promote you to panelists, and do we have bill rich. I just see, just see Michael. Hi Michael welcome. You're on mute. Hello. Hi. And do you want to give us the the five minutes. So, what their applicant is looking for here is to confirm resource area boundary. The applicant submitted a report, a wetland delineation and report that was conducted by Ward Smith, senior professional wetland scientists. And it's for delineation of an intermittent stream that's located on Mr. Rich and Mr. Lapinski's property. All they're looking for is basically to confirm the flagging that is on the delineation provided. There is an acknowledgement that there may be additional resource areas on the property. And so the work proposed in association with this, it is just to confirm the accuracy of the flags and to confirm that it is in fact an intermittent stream. We did conduct a site visit on the 20th and just the timing of it unfortunately with the leaves having freshly fallen the photos didn't really provide a great perspective. And I can pull those up to show them to you but I also would like to show you the photos from the summer when it was actually delineated and the stream was flowing. So I'll start with the photos from our site visit and then I'll share the photos that are less Michael you'd prefer to share the photos and videos that you've taken but I can also share. So these are the photos and again that it's it's leaf covered this is a the profile of the stream is really low. That's my mileage. This is this doesn't really give a great perspective but I would like to, because I think that the really important perspective here for this site is to see the stream when it's flowing. And so let me just get back to the project folder so I can share that with you. This is the stream when it's actually got water in it. Of course this is a seasonal stream. So it's only going to be flowing during the time of year when we have rain in the channel. These are some photos. And this is also a photo of the that's a little more clear of the flagging after it was after the flagging was completed. And you can see some of the stratified drift there in the in the stream bed. I can share the delineation report that was submitted by Ward I'm not sure what else would be useful but anything you need me to pull up just let me know. Thanks Aaron. Michael do you want to take five minutes to say that just some background on on Phil and on his wife and my wife that we've lived in these two houses for 30 years now. And this particular feature, this intermittent stream that runs east and west through our lots does go downhill to a number of vernal pools and other wetlands. And in the past we've always kind of taken it for granted, but with climate change, the stream has gotten bigger, and the channeling's gotten much deeper and wider and the feature is kind of hard to ignore now. And each year it seems like the flow through this feature seems to increase in volume and in duration. And we now believe that this stream is a very important water resource on our properties and in our neighborhoods and we feel it needs to be treated as such. As Aaron says we've consulted with the town conservation commissioner we retained a wetland scientists to delineate the stream issued a report stating that it is a stream under the town of Amherst wetland regulations. And we're just looking for the Amherst conservation commission to verify these findings. Thanks Michael. All right, Bruce. I just wanted to make sure that those pictures that had a road in them that that is Shootsbury Road, correct. Yeah, maybe. In both sets of pictures show a road in the background. I just want to double check that that is Shootsbury Road. So I think there's, there are two driveways. There's a culvert where this comes out from the driveway above Bill Rich's property. And then there's a private drive where the water goes under. And I can pull the. Photos from the site visit back up to try to get clarification on that question. Yeah, while you're doing that I went on the site visit. I would agree that the leaves really really obscure everything at this point. So I'm actually saying that also just to caution anybody else who's going out and looking at things that. The perspective that you might have right now, you know, it's useful to look at those previous pictures when, you know, there's no leaf cover on the ground, because obviously there's like very poor depth perception through these, these current pictures. And also, just for the record, Andre and Bruce both saw this feature when we were attending the Shootsbury Road site visit, because it does go under the driveway entrance for the, the anrad that's just north of the site. And these are driveways. But the other one, the farthest one, those are driveways that go on to Shootsbury Road. That's all I'm trying to. Yeah, those are private driveways. Yeah. Alex, you're on you Alex. Alex, you're on mute. When Aaron was going through her pictures I saw cobbles. And also the picture where somebody's feet in them. I saw stones that look like they were trying to delineate the stream. I take it, those stones that were delineating the stream somebody put them there. The cobbles are washed around. And I'm interested to know if the velocity of the water there is such that it has moved away smaller particles than those cobbles, or did somebody put the cobbles in there to riprap the stream. It's on the base of the stream bed. But does somebody put them there. I'm interested more in the velocities of the water. Mike, do you want to handle that one or if you know. If she could go back to her pictures, that would be helpful. Where it comes out of the culvert. Did you want the pictures of the flows or did you want the pictures from the site visit that was most recent? Site visit. Sorry, I keep going back and forth. Yeah, I mean my suspicion is that those cobbles were probably placed by somebody and that they were, they may have been placed to try to prevent scour. But because the lower stretches of the stream were very sandy gravelly. But I really don't don't know the answer to your question. They just look, it looks almost like a little stone wall was placed along there. Right. I think Alex was referring to sort of where it comes out of the road. I can't remember if that's a, maybe from the early season. Low picture. Yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah, I don't know it's it's hard to tell if that's the native substrate or not. That's difficult to tell. I mean, that's what my yard looks like when the water is washed away so it could just be a lot of glacial till. So, given the size of those rocks, and the fact that they're water around their water smooth. There's a high velocity of water coming down through there. And I can understand. The resident being concerned with climate change is going to have more water when we get these. Downpours of three to six inches in a night. So thank you for your concern. Andre. Yeah, this is your yard. Any other questions from commissioners. Okay, I'm looking for a motion. To, yeah, sorry. I'm just going to put this up because it's a little complicated because it's a determination and there's kind of some caveats associated with it. I'm going to move to issue a positive positive determination checking box to a one, noting that the bank boundary is confirmed as accurate. And the intermittent stream is jurisdictional only under the town of Amherst wetlands protection by law regulations. Only flags be one through 30 be 39 and a one through a six are being confirmed. And it is an acknowledged that there may be additional resources resource areas president present on the subject properties. Three, no work is proposed or approved as part of this determination and any proposed future work would require bank flagging to be surveyed and work subject to local permit approval. So, I'm going to move to issue a positive determination check box five. The area is subject to review and approval by the Amherst conservation commission pursuant to wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws article 3.31. I think I got Alex on the second under in the first Alex. Hi. Jason. Hi. Aaron, did you want to say something or is your hand. I'll finish your voting and then I'll have Bruce. Hi, Andre. Hi, I'm an eye. I was just going to say that we should take public comment if anybody has anything to say. Keep forgetting that sure. Public, if you have any comments, please raise your hand, I'll keep an eye on it. And who was the second on that vote, if I might ask Alex. Alex, thank you. Okay, seeing none. Okay. So moving on to our other business. Stanley's free pickleball courts. We bring a date back on for this one or we just, I see comment. Zachary Glass, I'm going to allow you to speak. Yep. Can you hear me? Yep. Again, I just wanted to. Unfortunately, I was tied up in another planning board meeting. Greenleaves project. It sounds like Mr. Kraboski was having trouble accessing this. And I just wanted to kind of follow up and see if that had been continued to the next meeting or if there's any chance to potentially reopen that this evening or if it had already been voted on to move it along. We did move it. Yeah, sorry. It was difficult to tell what was going on there. Oh yeah, no, I completely understand. I at least wanted to at least come in and just state that I wasn't particular to kind of blow this off. I just couldn't get out of my other meeting in time to jump on this one. Understood. Thank you. So thank you. Yep. Thank you. Checking out folks. So yes, thank you. Thanks, Mike. Thank you, Mr. Levinsky. Thank you. Do you want me to jump into other business, Michelle? Yeah. Okay, please. So the Pickleball... Sorry, Dave. I'm sorry, yeah. I didn't mean to interrupt. I thought the Pickleball closed last meeting, did it not? It did close. We were gonna issue it tonight. I talked with Dave about getting an extension on it because I ran out of time on the drafting of the order. So we'll push that to the eighth and hopefully I'll have that fully drafted so that it's ready just for a very quick vote at the next meeting. Okay, so other items. There was two requests for minor administrative changes to orders of conditions. One was for 285 Sunderland Road. This is the site, excuse me, that has the solar facility and we had requested some improvements to the erosion and sediment controls at the last meeting because there was some pretty significant issues with their erosion controls. I uploaded to the commission's folders and I'll navigate to it and pull it up. The applicant has requested and this was kind of at my urging to stabilize the access road because it appears that the original order of conditions didn't require any stabilized surfacing on the gravel access drive, which I think is 90% of the erosion issues that we're seeing on the site at this time. So they went out there and refreshed the erosion controls, but I told them, we're gonna be refreshing erosion controls until the cows come home if we don't do something to stabilize the actual road itself. So they did come up with a proposal to they submitted a sort of informal email with a sketch and I'll bear with me. I'm just trying to pull it up and share it with you to add a trap rocks to take off some of the silty sand substrate that's on the access road and put down three to four inches of two inch trap rock on the surface of the road. So this was at my urging and I'm fully in favor of it. I would just have two comments on this. The first is once they take up the sand and silt material that they should put down a landscaping fabric underneath the trap rock to make sure that the material underneath the trap rock driveway doesn't just erode underneath it. And then the other comment I have is that the problems that I observed on the access road were not just on the upper part here, but they're also on this part. So I would just suggest that we might tell them that this section of the road is also a problem and that they, if they're gonna be making roadway improvements they should improve the entire road and not just this one portion. So that's the only comment I have on it. If there are commissioners, any comments? No. Okay. Well, I agree with the suggestion that they should improve both sections of the road once they're starting on the first section or the secondary section. If the commission's gonna approve this there should be a motion and I would really recommend the specifics of including the landscaping fabric underneath the stone and also that we encourage them to install the trap rock on both sides of the access road. Okay. Unless anyone has any comments looking for a motion with silt liner fabric, trap rock and what was the third one? Just that extending it for the entire extent of the access road. Extension. Jason. Yeah, sorry. I'm a little curious as far as the pictures that they sent. So what they're proposing in this informal email is this two to three inch rock throughout the entirety of this area that they've shaded green? Yes. Okay. And so they showed a few pictures of some, what looks like compost filter, one compost filter sock going across this road. Is that just a measure that they put there temporarily and that when they put the rock down they're going to remove this? I asked them to refresh the controls at the, I mean, basically right now there's pretty significant erosion issues happening on the site. So they completed the work that was associated with the order of conditions, but the permit is still valid. And so since the site's not stable and they're still experiencing erosion issues, they refreshed the controls. And I think that's probably what they're showing is just trying to demonstrate that they refreshed some of the controls. Okay. So then this trap rock that's put there is this going to be considered their final stabilization for this road? And are they going to be looking to close out their permit? I mean, once they've achieved stabilization I would assume that they'll eventually be seeking a certificate of compliance on the site, but they have so many issues with erosion right now they're not really ready to get a certificate yet. So hopefully this will bring them a step closer to achieving stabilization so they can get their certificate. So aside from this road, there are other areas within the site that are having issues with erosion. And are not stabilized? Well, that's a really great point, Jason. So there's a stream that flows through here and there's actually beavers that are active. And so what's happening is the actual bridge that goes across the site is timber matting and the water level continually fluctuates and it does actually flood over the access road timber mats periodically. And so that's part of the problem with the erosion controls is that I think they're washing downstream and also the beavers are, they're actively creating these muddy berms and stuff throughout the site. And so it's really difficult and challenging to figure out what is actually material that's moving off of their work site and what is material that the beavers are pulling in and globbing together like adjacent to the access drive. But I do think that it will easily differentiate what the problem is once they get the road stabilized because the road stabilization issues have kind of complicated the ability to monitor the site because I can't really tell is this material coming off the access or is it just the beavers getting involved? And nothing's gonna happen with the beavers. The beavers are gonna be in there, they're gonna be doing their thing. So hopefully this will just be a measure of stabilization that the human-caused sediment influences will be somewhat addressed but the beaver issues are probably gonna continue. And so then, how, what was their, how are we making the determination of when this site actually has achieved its final site stabilization? So they would come to us with a certificate of compliance when they're ready for us to make that evaluation and probably with an as-built plan that shows all their finished infrastructure that they constructed on the site. That's generally sort of how it's triggered but once the site is stabilized and I can document that the work areas and the areas where they're using for access are stable, at that point, the erosion controls can come down. So that'll be kind of the next step. Erosion controls come down and then they can figure out when they wanna come through with their certificate. Their erosion control shouldn't be removed though until everything is stabilized. Correct. And there's sediment controls. Correct. And I apologize because I don't recall seeing a slip for this project. Was that all described in the slip for this project? Yeah, so the solar facility itself was permitted and constructed prior to my arrival which was over, well, over four years ago now. It was completed over four years ago, the solar facility. The access road was existing so there was never any stabilization required as part of the original solar facility construction process which I felt like was a little unusual. But they did come through with a notice of intent. It was probably right before you started, Jason, to put in an equipment pad and they were tying in a, let me, I'm trying to remember now. It was, oh gosh, what do they call them? It was a power pole, no? Yeah, they were putting in power poles so that they could tie in the electricity, like I'm drawing a blank on what the terminology is right now. The tie into the grid, basically, for the facility is what they came through with and that was the last piece that they just got permitted. And so that's the work that's associated with our recent monitoring. Okay. All right, thank you. Thanks, Jason. Alex, I think you were next. Yeah, I don't know, Aaron, if it's really necessary to differentiate much moving off the site and what's being assembled by the beavers. They should look very different. You're well aware of what moving sediment looks like that's being moved by water and you probably know what a beaver scent mound looks like. And also the beavers will deposit musk on the scent mounds that are usually pretty close to the water's edge and musk has a very sweet smell. So we're really easy to tell the difference. I don't know what it matters but I thought I'd just clarify that. Yeah. From a site monitoring standpoint, it was unclear to me whether, so I would agree with you normally that it was just difficult for me to tell some of the material look like it may have been like trackings from a vehicle going up the access road that had been deposited on the bridge itself and then in a flood washed down. And the material that comes out of truck tires that's muddy and globed together can look very similar to the stuff that beavers, the mud that beavers assemble and I didn't know if it had just gotten saturated and globed together or if it was in fact the beavers. So I would agree with you in general and I think that that's why this access road is the stabilization of it is so important so that it can be more clear when I go out there what I'm actually identifying. Thanks Alex Aaron. Bruce. So I apologize for being confused. I don't understand what the minor administrative change is that we're talking about and the description of all this doesn't seem very minor. Yeah, so and this is a great question from a new commissioner and I think it's a good learning opportunity to talk about this. So when an applicant files, when an applicant receives an order of conditions and they have a set plan that's been approved by the conservation commission, any change that comes before the commission is typically presented as a minor administrative change and the reason for that is it's up to the commission to make the decision. Is this a minor change that we can approve administratively or is this work significant enough that they need to come back with an amended notice of intent to actually permit the work? I would agree with you in general Bruce about sort of the impact of the work being more significant. I think, I guess just from a staff standpoint, number one, I wanna give them the incentive to do this to stabilize it because I'm really concerned that if we say, oh, you have to come back and file an NOI, they're just gonna say, no, we're gonna leave it as is and then they're not gonna do the stabilization and it's gonna be a monitoring nightmare. The other thing is that just in terms of resource area impacts, they are sort of the way that they've described it is that there's no net increase in fill on the site. Like they're doing, they're removing material and replacing it with a trap rock as opposed to just putting the trap rock on top. So it's kind of like a balance in the cut and fill that they're proposing to do here. So just a consideration, but it's a completely weird description. I see, I'm still trying to learn the finer distinctions. Thanks Ferris, it's always good to cover that. Okay, so unless it's on the table that this is an amendment and not a minor administrative change, we're looking to make them, okay, Jason gotcha, go ahead. Sorry, I wanted to just comment then on Erin's recommendation that we recommend a filter fabric go underneath the trap rock. Are we going to, I think it would be a good idea if we state something a little bit more than a filter fabric. If they do, if they go and put something that's like a polyethylene silt fence and call it a filter fabric, I don't think that that's going to achieve the goal that we want. I think it needs to be more of a non-woven geotextile filter fabric, as opposed to something like a polyethylene filter fabric or something like that. It needs to be a little bit more a significant because we want it to last as well. Really appreciate that suggestion, that's great. Yeah, I don't know if we want to get into the exact specifications of it, but so I'm not exactly sure how to word that, but I just wanted to bring that up that we want it to be substantial. Aaron, do you have, are you writing this on a screen? Yeah, maybe I think we've collected enough sort of complexity here that it would be helpful to see the motion and just make sure we're all on the same page with the conditions, Bruce. Are there of our attendees related to this particular topic? Raise your hand, please attendees if you want to comment on this. I mean, I don't have any names for this one and I see no hands. Yes, public, if you have comments, please go ahead and raise your hand, we'll keep an eye on it. I'm typing, bear with me. Does this, the discussion, I'm happy to amend this. Jason is substantial, a specific enough word for you. Like does it, is that meaningful in terms of the specs of purchasing something? I think substantial is an ambiguous word. I think if you just state that a nonwoven geotextile fabric, you can say if you want, or if we want as a group to decide, we can say something like four ounce nonwoven, four ounce or heavier, or six ounce, it really depends. I'll stop my head. I don't have a great, I don't know what would be the most appropriate weight, but I think stating at least a nonwoven geotextile fabric as opposed to something like filter fabric is a good enough recommendation. Okay, maybe put an EG before the four ounce so we're not tying them to that in case it's not exactly what is appropriate. Okay, does this look good to everybody? And if so, you want six ounce. Okay, I'm looking for a motion if everyone's okay with this. I will move to make the motion to approve the minor administrative change with the following conditions, a nonwoven geotextile fabric, EG four to six ounce or heavier, shall be placed under the trap rock and it is recommended to extend the fabric and trap rock for the full length of the access road. Second. Jason on the first, Andre on the second, Andre. Hi. Bruce. Hi. Jason. Hi. Alex. Hi. And I'm an I. Okay, I don't see any public comment, hands up. So other business, the Lincoln app, mass app incident. I'm sorry. Sorry. What did we do 51 East Pleasant Street? So there is a correspondence in the folder on this. I did request additional information and you're welcome to take a look at the correspondence. The correspondence was what I would describe as very ambiguous with regard to cleanup of the bank. And so I've requested additional detail on what that actually includes from the applicant. And also I requested a planting plan. So they came forward with like suggested species to plant and that they were gonna clean up the bank of the stream which included removal of vegetation but there was no detail with regard to what stabilization measures they were gonna use, what measures they were gonna do to clean it up like if they were using mechanical means or labor like physical labor. So I'd like to get a little bit more detail from the applicant before we move on that one. But I did provide the correspondence in the folder for your information. Yeah, thanks for catching up, Bruce. And just to follow up on that they were talking about removing knotweed and I would like more details upon like, I think this is SWCA again. So they have their techniques and methods but I just would make me feel more comfortable to know that it's being taken out carefully and getting bagged and disposed of properly because without significant and repetitive and multiple kinds of treatment it's hard to really see that going away. But I saw their updated planting plans and it looked fine to me having not been there but I guess we'll keep an eye on that once they come back with some more details. Yes. Okay, so the potential enforcement situation this was made aware to me by our our electrical inspector in town. She was out doing an inspection. This is an order of conditions that we have for the it's at UMass for the Lincoln Ave apartments that are off of Lincoln Ave and Mass Ave. And it's right adjacent to the Tan Brook. The, I'm just trying to make sure I get to the right folder here. The situation was pretty, why am I not finding it? You guys see it in your OneDrive folders, right? For some reasons. Yeah, did anybody not see this one? Just so we know how much to cover. Yeah, yeah, pretty significant situation a truck basically full of asphalt tack kind of burst between two buildings. And somebody, some company came in to clean it up and sprayed a very abrasive material, liquid material all over the road, the transformers, the sidewalk and washed everything into the catch basins. And it was strong enough that it took the paint off of the transformers. And I reported it to DEP, the emergency response division at DEP immediately as soon as I found out about it. And basically just checking in with you guys if you think that this is something we should issue an enforcement order on. To me, this is a pretty substantial and egregious water quality situation that should not have happened and we should have been contacted. Is there an Alex? Erin, in your opinion, what they did, would that be contrary to whatever license they hold? Well, it's certainly a violation on their order of conditions. There's an standing order of conditions for construction of that apartment complex that they're currently monitoring and the construction is wrapping up, they're sort of doing their final site work. So it's definitely a violation on their order of conditions. I would say that it's probably a violation on a number of regulatory fronts. Like Clean Water Act being one of them, like a straight up EPA violation. That's not my area of expertise, but I think it was pretty significant and also they probably used quite a bit of the material, the liquid material to get this asphalt tack off of. I mean, it's basically like a tar. They sprayed it off of everything. And you can buy five gallons of it at Home Depot, I think. But I was interested in, I didn't expect you to know, it was sort of a rhetorical question, but if their job is to clean things up, they no doubt have a license to do so. And might it be that they lived, they were acting outside their license, including in addition to the things that you were talking about? Yeah, I don't know who did the work. I don't know who the company was that spilled the asphalt tack. I don't know who the company was that did the cleanup. This was the electrical inspector went out to do an inspection of the transformers and said there was people out there cleaning it as she was out there and she said, what happened here? And they said, oh, this situation happened and she immediately took pictures and notified me. So I don't really know what licenses the individuals hold who did this work, but somebody should have known better. Yeah, my question comes from your question. Would the commission like to take enforcement action? I don't know what my feeling is, yes. I don't know what the sidesboards of that would be within our authority. Yeah, we've discussed several ways in which this might have been some kind of violation, but I think we have to hone in on what the enforcement is under our jurisdiction. All right, everybody's got their hands up. Andre, I think you're next. Yeah, so why don't we take some steps here? What, no, I'm needing some clarification. What can we do to call in, if you would, or talk to the folks who are in charge of this construction? Because frankly, what we need to know is, you know, what, where, when, how and who. Yeah, we have a name on the permit holder, like a contact person. Yeah, okay, so that would be the contractors. Yes. So is that something that we could then bring them in and, you know, make sure that they have all this information and find it out from them. Let's get an explanation. You know, and I don't know what other agencies are gonna be doing about it also, but it'd be good to at least have an idea of where they're all going. Thanks, Andre. Bruce. My question was simply, did they actually have to clean it up so quickly? Was it, if it was just tacky stuff that was adhered to various things, couldn't they have waited and found out how to do it carefully instead of rushing in and pouring all this toxic stuff to get it cleaned up? That might be a question for our contact person and also kind of brings to mind like the communication between orders of conditions and just general on-site protocols and what's, you know, given to the contractors. It falls apart there sometimes. Jason. Yes, I'm assuming that this project does a sweep. Yep. Is that true? Yep. So I'm concerned that this may one, be a reportable quantity. Or a spill. It's certainly hydrocarbon and depending upon the type and its use, you know, using it as tack as it's intended, it's fine once it goes outside of that intended use that is not fine and that may potentially be a reportable quantity that should be listed in their sweep. If they discharge any of this to the receiving waters, right, any of the resources, then that's a discharge of pollutants. You know, it'd be like an unauthorized non-stormwater discharge. So there's a number of things from a sweep standpoint was it documented? Did their responsible person go out, take pictures, were they even notified of it? And then what impacts did this have because it says that they cleaned it up by just power washing and that it went into the, if I read it correctly, it went into the drains, storm drains. Right, which drain? Did it go from the storm drains? Did those storm drains go directly to the receiving waters? Did they go to a basin? If they go to a basin, is this material still in the basin? And then if it's an infiltration basin, is that going to infiltrate in any groundwater? So I think that there's, we certainly need more information but there's potentially larger impacts to the resources and certainly some documentation that I think that they need. And then what was in that, what was in that water? Is it a solvent? Is it a degreaser? Are there other surfactants? Because those could potentially have impacts to the resources as well. And are they going to have to remove any soils that were impacted by these hydrocarbons then? Thanks, Jason. That's great expertise to have on this commission. Okay, Andre? Yeah, I'll just throw out again that it seems like, it seems like the DEP should be, if they're going to be investigating it in some way, then they would be taking some samples, I'd imagine, further down the TAN brook. If not, then it may be something that, if they're not planning on doing that, then it may be something that we would want to try to get ahead of. And otherwise I do agree that at least to start out with, it looks like there should be some kind of enforcement done on this. I don't know if anyone's actually just mentioned that or not, but. Chris? So the other thing that strikes me is that, okay, so this vehicle came and it made us feel it was attempting to do something as part of the construction. And so is there sufficiently stopped work orders to prevent them from just bringing another truck to try to accomplish the thing they didn't accomplish the first time? And that's at least partially why they tried to clean it up fast so they could get in there and do whatever they were going to do the first time around. And do we know if they've stopped work? What do we know about that? Yeah, I found out about it yesterday at the end of the day. So this is all very new. And yeah, I need to do more data collection and also make contact with appropriate agencies to get more information. But I do think that in light of the fact that we're aware of it, it wouldn't hurt to document it in some way and put in writing the fact of we believe that a resource area was altered. There are catch basins. I agree with Jason. We need to find out if these catch basins still have the material in them and or if there was an actual discharge to the tan and where that discharge point is so that it can be looked into. I know emergency response was out there from DEP. So this is a lot of what they do to look into it. But I agree there's a sweep on the site. So there's multiple points of potential violation and response action. So if the commission isn't comfortable issuing enforcement right now, I can do a little bit more investigation. I am a little concerned because our upcoming meeting is extremely intense. And so piling this on to a future meeting, I think is gonna be challenging. But I'll defer to you whether you wanna act tonight on issuing something or if you'd prefer to wait until the next meeting to- Well, I think what we were wondering is what's the authority under which we give the enforcement order in it? Based on what Jason was saying, it sounds like the sweep is. Is that- It would be our order of conditions, the violation of the Wetlands Protection Act in our local wetland protection bylaw. As far as the sweep, we can certainly mention that there are other entities that are receiving inspections on this and I'm copied on the sweep. So I can look into that a little bit more and find out where they're at with their sweep inspections and try to get a copy and find out if they've reported this. But I mean, it's from the Wetland Protection Act side and our local bylaw side that the enforcement would be issued. And it would be for the potential alteration of a resource area from this activity. Okay, Jason. The alteration being the introduction of these pollutants or- Okay. Do we wanna do a show of hands at who's in favor of issuing an order of conditions? I mean, sorry, enforcement order. Okay, I see, yeah. Okay, I see three, four. Andre, I don't see your hand. Is there any comment you wanna give about this? Yeah, I just, I'm kind of more of a proponent of being able to prove it first before we issue it, no? That's a good point. Is there a lack of, I don't know, how do we do that then? I mean, the alteration, well, how do we prove the, I'm sorry to interrupt. I was just thinking the alteration needs to be proved, right? Isn't that what we're gonna try to enforce? So then we, how do we do that? Yeah. I'm not asking. Yeah, I mean, so generally, so it's a little bit difficult. I agree, like ordinarily you would do sort of some site investigation. And in this case, we do have sort of some information on the situation, but not a comprehensive picture. A lot of times commissions will issue an enforcement order and state that we know that a violation has been committed and we're in the process of doing additional research to find out the extent of the violation, just to sort of put them on notice that we're aware of it and get their attention and also let them know that they need to cease and desist because in part and parcel, the enforcement order serves as a cease and desist order. But it's not always that when you issue, it's not like, so for example, when enforcement occurs, because it serves as a cease and desist, we don't always have all of the information when the enforcement order is issued. And a lot of times the enforcement order will be ratified as additional information is gathered and collected and we have sort of more details with regard to the extent of the violation. But yeah, I mean, I think it could go both ways, but I do think that issuing an enforcement order would get their attention and also sort of trigger them to start looking into this more comprehensive way so that they're not just brushing it off and we're saying, oh, hey, we want more information via email, this is a pretty substantial situation. All right, so given what you're explaining, I'd be an eye. Bruce? Yes, as an administrative sidebar, is there any mechanism within our work where we could have an emergency additional meeting so that we could do what we needed to do without burdening the next regular meeting? That's a great point. And as we move into December, we might need to discuss that because I'm just gonna pull up my screen. I'm sure you guys have already seen this, but the upcoming meeting in November is gonna be substantial and it's gonna be tough for us to handle some of these other, you know, our normal other business items when we're dealing with this level of business. Alex? I was going to wait to bring this up but since we're talking about next meeting, I will not be available from November one to the number 12, November 12, and I'll be in a country which may not even have Wi-Fi that I can get to the United States. So I won't be available for meetings of the ComCom or the subcommittee during that timeframe. Okay, and maybe that will affect an emergency meeting if we have to ratify something, but okay. It may affect you having a forum. Okay, what was the date, the 12th, you said, of November? I fly on November one and I come back on November 12. Okay, well, that gives us some time to have an emergency meeting if we need to. Yeah, as to emergency meetings, I suggest that we fit whatever we need to do into our schedule and it's entirely possible that we get deluged through it more than we can handle in our regular schedule and that's just life. Okay, well, let's try and finish this one for today. Right, so at hand is deciding if we're going to issue an order of conditions and what kind it's going to be, Aaron, whether this is, yeah, do you want to just explain that so we can figure out which avenue? So it would be an enforcement order and the enforcement order, so there's a couple ways that you can go about with the enforcement order. You issue a cease and desist and say, no further work related to this can occur until we're able to collect more information. You can also tell them that they're required to file an after the fact notice of intent to basically deal with, to provide us with a report as to what occurred on the site and also what the cleanup and remedial actions will be, related to the spillage that occurred and or we could ask them to attend an upcoming meeting to provide us with additional information regarding like a report of exactly what occurred, who did the work, why it was done, what the ramifications were and at that point we could get more sort of agency input from any investigations that have taken place since this happened. I personally am in favor of that option too with the NOI to put some burden on them to determine what happened and the extent to it. Can we condition it with some kind of like further testing or communications with DEP? I just don't want it to leave it to Amherst to have the burden of proof on this if possible. Yeah, so if the commission's in favor of issuing enforcement order, I'm fully able to issue the enforcement order and I can sign it. And then I would say that I'll bring it to you at the next meeting for ratification and you guys can, that way we're not milling over technical details of exactly what it's gonna say, but if I know you want them to file and after the fact NOI, I know you want them to stop any work associated with removal of any material associated with this and that we want them to come to an upcoming meeting to report to us exactly what occurred. I can include all those details in the enforcement and then they'll be aware that they're sort of on notice that we're aware of it and what our expectations are. Great, Andre? Yeah, within that report that we're talking, that we're discussing, I'd like to see an accounting of what substances were used and what volumes in order to dilute or remove the tar. Okay. Alex? Yeah, my understanding is that the emergency order is not an arrest. So going back to Andre, when he said we need to be sure, I think it sounds like the emergency order is a gather, it's to put them on notice, a gathering information and I'd like to know if this can get done, if we can do something to approve Aaron doing this, perhaps in communication with the chair so that we don't have to bring it back for ratification in the next meeting. So unless you guys, you're welcome to make a motion tonight and I can run through this, you're welcome to make a motion to issue an enforcement order, issuing a cease and desist related to the activities that have taken place that were noted in the email that were provided to us from Tina, the electrical inspector, come to an upcoming meeting to explain exactly what occurred and then ask them to file and after the fact notice of intent to address the situation and the remediation actions and then also to provide us with an accounting of the substances and the volumes. If somebody makes that motion I can, it doesn't need to be ratified if you guys want to vote on it tonight and I can issue it and put your signatures on it. Right there you have it commissioners. In favor of what Aaron said. All right, I can try if you want. Please. I move to issue an enforcement order regarding the Mass Ave Lincoln Avenue incident that was documented on 10, 23, 23 that would include a cease and desist order to request the applicants to provide a report on what occurred, to attend an upcoming meeting, to explain to the commission what occurred as well and to provide an accounting of all substances used in volumes there of as well as Aaron, I'm going to need help with the last one issuing an order of conditions or after the fact notice of intent requesting an after the fact in Hawaii. Okay, Andrea on the motion. I will second it. I think Alex got you. Andre. Hi. Alex. Hi. Jason. Hi. Bruce. I'm an eye. Okay. Poor Tanbrook. All right, best post on that. I think we've covered everything. There's one thing, the forest cutting plan. I did am I missing anything else? Is that the last thing in our folders? I just had a question. Sorry, Bruce, go ahead. No, no, I was just going to say I had one other question. Very simple, short thing at the very end. Yeah, why don't you just say that? So we were all asked to comment on the evaluation of the town manager and on page six of his very long description of all the things the town has done. It talks about we obtained grant funds to complete the fairing restoration project. Is there a way that we can get links to the information that this project where it is what the money was for and just I'm interested in the status of this project. Yes. We can, I can try to provide some information to you, Bruce. This project was done on the Fort River Farm property which also has the community garden on it. And it's at the tail end of where the fairing brook enters into the Fort River, pretty substantial floodplain restoration project that was funded through a variety of grants and that was completed. I wanna say it was like my first year, it was a grant that had been received by the former wetlands administrator and she saw it through to completion. And so it was a effort to restore some of the water quality issues on the fairing brook. Just implied that the grant was achieved in 2023 and the work was done and I had never heard about it. So we can talk about it later. I just, just curious about it. Yeah. Alex. Erin was that money, what you were referring to was the creation of the floodplain? Yes. Thank you. Yeah, that was several years ago. There is a walking path down there. I am confused about the timeline, Bruce, that you've mentioned. So maybe we could just handle that with some emails offline. But thank you for paying attention to all that stuff. It's on my to do this. It's very long. Okay. Thank you. Maybe it's, yeah. Anyway, okay. The forest cutting plant, I just wanted to bring this up because NHSP actually had comments on this one and there's the potential take for two species. So I don't know if anybody went through it. I did notice that two of their comments, one was related to the access roads. One access road has like five stream crossings and the other one has one stream crossing. And according to this document, the applicant has said the forest cutting plan includes only one access road, but they didn't specify which one. So it would just be nice to see or hear and confirm that it's the one with only one stream crossing. And then there's a condition for which the activities only take place on frozen ground. Based on last winter, that's a pretty short timeframe and almost isn't continuous for a month, an entire month anymore. And my question is who monitors, if anybody, the conditions from NHSP because the logger's job is to log. And if there's not an environmental monitor out there, making sure they're not skidding logs across the stream, like how does that get regulated? Does any NHSP go have a site visit? Anyway, those are my questions. That's a great question. I have already an email into Ali Akhandi who was the reviewer on this, who did the site survey, asking her to discuss the comments. And I'll make note of the comments that you made, Michelle, to try to get some answers to it. But yeah, I mean, I've had some issues in Amherst with forest-cutting plans and I'm not sure how to, I'm trying to navigate this, I'm a little bit at the end of my, I'm feeling a little tired, so it's a little hard for me to articulate this at this point of the night, but it's been challenging to say the least to initiate conversations with foresters and between the service forester and even between the state forester about some of the activities that are taking place on the forest-cutting plans. And when I raised concerns, I'm basically told it's none of my concern. And in other towns I've worked for, I've been invited out on forest-cutting plans to view them and invited out by the foresters and the loggers and the service foresters. So it's a very different in Amherst, very different environment and I'm trying to get a handle on that. So I'll work to talk with Ali and find out a little bit more detail, but in general I have expressed concerns about the communication on forest-cutting plans. And I mean, one of my big questions is there any monitoring or oversight, but it sounds like we either don't know that and it's certainly not up to us. And just for Bruce and Jason, the difference with this forest-cutting plan as far as the one I've seen since I've been on the commission is the potential take of two listed species. And maybe I could ask Andrea or Alex to define that, that's a legally defined term. I mean, yeah, anyone wanna, I can't think of it off the top of my head, but Alex, maybe do you have it? I mean, it's basically the destruction, killing or ultimate. Yeah, I mean, it's a weird word, but it means there's a list of species that's gonna be like fatally impacted by the activities. Is that accurate? For this conversation, yeah. Yeah, maybe fatally is not entirely. I think when you're talking about the word take, so you mean the word take as in what the law prohibits, right? Yeah, so I think that the language is something like the activity may result in take of two listed species. So you'll need to, so the important thing with these kinds of words is to look up the meaning in the statutes or more so in the regulations at the beginning of the regulations. So you have the MGL, for example, mass general law and that's like a statute. That's what the legislature writes and then the agencies create their regulations, which is the CMR. And within those regulations, at the beginning of the regulations, you'll find, you'll typically find one of the first sections is going to be definitions. And so that's where you're gonna wanna draw that definition. If not, then you go to the Black's law or to some of the law books. Okay, they don't have a permit for take, which they would need. So if their activities result in take, that would be illegal. That's as far as I understand it. And generally take is killing. Yes. Anyway, so just because that's a tricky word, but it's important to know when we talk about this and species and messages. I just wanted to briefly mention that. Okay, well, if there's nothing else, I'm gonna open for public comment. We have one person hanging on. He's raised her hand if you have anything to say. I did get a text from Glenn, by the way, that he was, what did he say? He said, he had a problem getting in and was not trying to decline speaking. He said he'll see you at the next meeting. It seemed like he was just having some technical difficulties, but yeah. I'm sorry about that, Glenn. Yeah, I just kept trying to invite him in and it wasn't working. So I don't know what was going on there. Anyway, we'll hopefully see you at the next meeting. Okay, I think we've covered everything. Yes, any last, oh, Alex. So are we leaving the cutting plan or is that buttoned up? I think Erin's gonna reach out with some questions, but we don't really have authority to approve or really do much except ask questions and have some comments. Is that correct, Erin? Right, right. Well, aren't we within our authority with regard to take of the species? That's mass wildlife. Yeah, natural heritage and endangered species program would be, I mean, I could certainly reach out to the forester and say that the commission is, well, let me, I mean, I guess my preference would be to speak to Allie first, address, ask her what the questions Michelle asked, try to get some answers from her as far as which access road is being done, bring up the issue about the frozen ground and also about the monitoring of the species during the project cutting. And then from there, I think circle back, Michelle and I can talk offline maybe about what the next step might be like potentially reaching out to the forester. I think the site is sensitive enough and there's enough wetland resources that, yeah, it's tricky because I'm not always, because of my role, not always welcomed with open arms on some of these sites. Yeah, I'm not sure how doable it is to monitor the species, but there are other conditions like no driving or dragging things over the streams that once they're out there, who knows. So that's just what I was wondering if anyone's gonna follow up with that or they just sign off. Yeah, I'll follow up and check in, we'll circle back on it. All right, unless there's anything else, I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. So moved. So I can. Alex on the motion, Jason on the second, Bruce? I'm. Jason? I. Alex? I. Andre? I. And I'm an I. All right, thanks guys. We'll see you for a big one next time. Rest up. All right, good night. Good night. Good night.