 All right. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the February 22nd meeting of the Amherst Conservation Commission. First item on the agenda is comments from the chair. Usually I just go through kind of what the plan for the meeting is. We have no formal hearings for this meeting, which is probably the first time in. Like at least the last four years that I can remember that. So hopefully we can be efficient. We do have like some significant, but well constrained other business items. So I think if we stay focused, we can get through this pretty quickly tonight. We also wanted to say thank you to Fletcher for pinch hitting and chairing in the last meeting. I was in no shape to run a meeting. So I really appreciate it. Yep. No problem. And it sounds like you guys got through a lot, which is awesome. Thank you. That's all I have to say. Dave, did you have anything you wanted to update us on? Sure. Just a couple of quick updates. Let's see. I was appreciative of Brad and Tyler for giving their presentation at the last meeting. I thought that was a nice summary of, of work out there in the field in 2022. You know, as always, there's, there's more to do with, with all the trails and. Trailheads and parking areas and whatnot. We are given that. This is kind of the winter. Well, with the exception, maybe tonight and some of the cold, cold streak we had a, you know, a month ago or so kind of the winter, winter that wasn't. So it has afforded us the opportunity to, to still be out in the field. They are still doing some brush hogging of, of field habitat when they can. You know, you know, you know, you know, Aaron, Brad and Tyler are also have been meeting. And I think I'm going to meet with them. I think next week or the week after to really kind of focus in on, you know, what projects do we want to bring before the commission for 2023? You know, and these would fall in the same categories, right? We, we know, you know, we have lots of deferred maintenance out there. Trails, bridges. You know, they're interpretation of existing bridges. Can be, can challenge us at times with regard to delineations and whatnot. So, you know, Aaron has been a great kind of steward of helping us navigate through those and what, what projects need to come before the commission for permitting and what are in upland areas. So I think she'll be, you know, I think that's the best we can. I think, you know, I think that's the best way to bring Tyler advice as we look at 23 projects. Again, would that kind of focus on, let's, let's do the best we can to fix what we already have and, and not expand too, too much. Let's see. Aaron may want to give you a quick update on Hickory Ridge. With regard to next steps there. And I will leave that to her. I believe the bridge. Crossing over the Fort river is kind of the next step. I know that Aaron and I need to connect on the land use policy. I think that is coming back before you probably at your next meeting. If you have a room on your next agenda. So that's exciting as you recall. We all agreed I think that we were going to kick off this small working group to begin to kind of chip away at some of the, the older policy. The older policy documents we have and summarize all of those and also look at kind of land use policy moving forward so I'm excited about that in 23. Let's see. We may be hearing speaking of land use policy. We may be hearing from some of the folks who care deeply about Mount Pollux. I think just to give you a heads up there. There's a there's a core group of folks who I've been talking with for a couple of years now about my politics. They would let they like many other people in town would love to see improvements to Mount Pollux. You know, done ie parking and kiosk and and and trail improvements, etc. And again it's all within within reason but but also we have to work within existing budgets and whatnot so they are most interested in kind of a land use plan for Mount Pollux and again I think this will be part of the subcommittee that you all created. I can't for the life of me tonight think of who was on it I think Michelle volunteered for that group who else volunteered for that camera and Alex and Alex okay great. We'll get together you know in the coming weeks and start focusing on that we do have some of those plans drafted those management plans for various areas and I think we want to have the bigger conversation about, you know what what habitat are we keeping in like early successional habitat if you will what areas might we let go and let nature take its course, but I think there's there's always great interest in Mount Pollux one of our most popular conservation areas. The only other thing I would mention is that Aaron and I are focused on the park grant that we got for Hickory Ridge. This is the accessible trail that we are planning for the western portion the southwestern portion of the property. Aaron has been working diligently on that and there will be a notice of intent coming before you, you know, as soon as soon as possible, as soon as Aaron can can he got more time to get that through to you. But that should be an exciting project. We are going to hire a designer to help us with that. And we of course would contract out for that construction. And that'll be a loop trail which I think you've seen the informal layout of but Aaron and I will be talking to you about it at that in more detail at the end doesn't have like a fiscal year timeline does it. Yeah, we are the park grant. We have to have finished by June, probably about June one of 24. Okay, not this calendar year 24. Yeah, that's good. So that's bringing together CPA dollars and also the park grant funding it's I think about 280,000 in funding. So lots of things as always to get done and move forward and just trying to fit it all in with with the staff time that we have. I will say that, you know, the planning department who often collaborates with us we lost two staff members recently to other positions Ben Brager and marine Pollack and Ben was working very closely with with Aaron and myself on Hickory Ridge so we lost a little, a little bandwidth there, but we're doing the best we can to keep that project on track. So, so yeah, I was out at Hickory Monday and took a walk around. And looked at some of the work that has been done north of the river, and also looked at our proposed path for the new accessible trail so. So anyway, I think I will stop there happy to take any questions. Kind of a quick Hickory Ridge question thanks Steve. I did replace the decking on the bridge that they're going to use to access the north side of the river yet. I'm just tracking the condition of those bridges. In fact, that's what Aaron can tell us a little bit more about the kickoff meeting was scheduled last week and some some unforeseen circumstances that meeting was postponed but that is upcoming and Aaron can tell you more about that. But mind for for all of the commission and anyone on this call. Any attendees, the only bridge that is going to be used for solar is that bridge on the eastern end of Hickory Ridge, none of the other bridges are approved for crossing. So vehicles of any kind cannot cross any of the other bridges. Those are only for pedestrians for hikers if you will. So we're actually as part of our work on the notices of intent. We're kind of assessing those bridges there's already been an engineering assessment done by the solar company so we have that. But we're actually taking a look at that and saying how many bridges, can we how many bridges should we maintain over time. There are five bridges over the Fort River and two over the up brook, excuse me plum brook. Whether we keep all of those or not is a question we're we're kind of looking at right now. Okay, thank you. Great. So thanks very much. Questioners any questions for Dave jumped in there quickly. Seeing knows. Okay, thanks Dave. Aaron do you want to move to minutes or do you want to give us Hickory Ridge update what order works best. Just as long as we're talking about Hickory Ridge. I'll just tell you. I was reviewing some of the materials they there is a safety plan that they had that amp had submitted to us. I think that was probably three or four months ago, which had some outdated information so I asked them to update that. And also we are rescheduling sort of the, what I'll call phase one which is like the West Pomroy to the bridge. There's going to be multi multi pre construction meetings so we already had the one pre construction for the tree removal. Pre construction for the access road from West Pomroy to the bridge and then from there, a series of pre construction meetings based on, I'm going to basically have them phase it out. The access road from the bridge to the first crossing the crossings themselves because there's two, two culverts going in and the access road between the culverts. The access road from the second culvert to the Western array. I'm not sure what their plan is as far as array construction if they're planning on doing that in a phased way. But I'm trying to phase it out as much as possible just to keep the lines of communication open so that I can really keep sort of a tight handle on exactly what's being done by who and where. So that's kind of where that stands the meeting there was a meeting scheduled on Monday which unfortunately had to be canceled and I've been playing phone tag with Jamie from dynamic. But I'll be touching base with her tomorrow and rescheduling that meeting and I'll keep you guys posted on what's going on. Awesome. Thanks for keeping such close track for that Aaron. Yeah, that sounds like a lot. Anything like else we can do to help. Like, that's some, I mean, I'm not going to show up at the meeting but you know, like, this is a lot for one project so I'm just, let us know. Yeah, I mean as soon as ground breaks they're going to be having a monitor out there. And as I do with all monitors I kind of do spot checking, as well as I know there's a lot of folks who walk out there. There's a lot of eyes on the ground and, you know, we'll just take it one day at a time and I'll keep you guys informed, you know as things go along and of the challenges, if anything comes up. Great. Alex I see you have a question go ahead. Oh, can't hear you think you're muted. You're still muted. Try. I'm going to just try leaving the call and joining again. Yeah, because it shows your mute is turned off and it's still not letting you talk. Yeah, it's got to be something with your audio. I got a time out. Yeah, we're giving up or slicing Alex's neck. Alex we will come back to this if you're able to rejoin with audio. Okay. And one more. Could I just add one more quick update. I see that Beth Wilson and Jason and go for it around the call but I just wanted to give the commission a heads up. Thanks and lunch part to Beth Jason Aaron and others, the town did submit a grant and I'm not going to get the name of the grant off the top of my head. I don't know if you guys can tell us about it or Aaron will remember but it was a federal grant that we submitted recently for for culvert culvert replacement and fish passage and stream continuity and all these these great potential outcomes of underperforming culverts on outline lane and West Pomeroy lane. Those to Beth Beth really coordinated it. She pulled it all together with with Aaron and Jason's help and budgets and DPW had done a lot of the prep work pre work on kind of designing culverts. The culverts on bottom lane, they, they flood their partially crushed there. They're just not carrying the volume that they should we I believe that road has been blocked that sometimes due to high water flow and etc. So, they were able to get some of the US Fish and Wildlife Service to partner and, and Fort River Watershed Association and some others so we'll keep our fingers crossed I don't know the timeline is probably months out. Really, it could be a really cool grant if we get it. So, that's great I know. Yeah, yeah, Beth has been chasing dollars to do that culvert replacement since for at least four years five years maybe so I mean I'll ask her about it but yeah, that's great. It could be a great grant and kudos to everybody who who is the Fed, like thunder. I think it's like highway. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, okay. That makes sense. All right. That's great thanks for adding that Dave, I hope that my fingers and toes are crossed. Okay, Aaron anything else you wanted to go over should we roll through some minutes here. Yeah, let's jump in minutes. All right team. Okay, we need motions to approve each of these minutes and then a voice vote. Yeah, I think I'm, I'm okay to do that. If anybody wants to jump in but I'm willing to, I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from February 8 2023. January 18 2023 January 11 2023. December 25 2023 and December 21 2022. So we're looking for a second. Second. Second from Andre voice vote Andre. Cameron. Fletcher. And I'm an eye. So that's just a quorum with Alex working on his audio. Hopefully that's it. I'm sure that's okay. Okay. And then the other issue on our only other formal agenda item is a request to put a geocache at Zala. Aaron, do you want to give us any background? I didn't see any concerns with this. Yeah. There is a gentleman in town who would like to put a geocache at the Catherine coal conservation area. I mean, I won't go into what geocaching is unless anybody wants me to, but basically they leave a hidden container with coordinates and people try to find, try to locate the container and open it up and they want to hide it near the parking lot in a soda soda bottle style container. And yeah, it would basically be there for folks to kind of as like a scavenger hunt type activity to try to locate it. It's very common on conservation lands. I've seen them on conservation lands all over the state. I appreciate the notification. I don't see any concerns with this commissioners any questions or concerns. No concerns at all. Okay, so I think we just. Hibernating that parking lot like before the new one was put in right there. It's right behind. Really? I shouldn't say that it was really close. Really, really close to the parking lot. Yeah, like four years ago. No kidding. Oh, wow. That's awesome. It's like literally in a mulch pile. The bear was in the mulch pile? I was like parking next to it and somebody's like, well, I know the guy that collared it and he was like, there's a bear right there. Anyway, that's awesome. Okay. Be careful when you put the geocache near the parking lot that could be there. Is it actually buried or not? The soda bottle with the coordinates and all that in it or no. I think they were suggesting hanging it from a tree. I've seen them in little nooks or, you know, in a tree that's got a bit of a break in it or I've seen them behind stuff under rock. My only thought is, you know, I mean, sometimes like somebody might just think that's trash and pick it up and throw it away or recycle it. I guess that's the risk you take. Yeah, I think they probably have a system for this. Okay, then commissioners. Yeah, I think a motion to approve the request to put a geocache at Catherine Cole. This is what it looks like. This is the geocache. It looks like the sort of a cylindrical bottle that they put the object in. So it's not, it doesn't look like a piece of garbage. Luckily. Okay, Alex, did you have a question about the geocache? No, just can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Good. And we'll come right back to you asking any questions, but let's just, we need a motion to approve this application, this land use application. Right. I motion to approve the application for a geocache. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion to approve the geocache at the Clark trails, is that what it is? Catherine Cole. Cole. Trails. Seconded. Seconded from Cameron voice vote Alex. I. Andre. Hi. Pleasure. Hi. Cameron. Hi. And I'm an eye. Okay. Alex, did you have a question about Hickory Ridge or something in Dave's report? That's public comment or. Dave had talked about a lot of people using the area would be curious if was, did you get a lot of. Attention. With regard to the tree cutting. Just generally speaking, you were asking them to put up signs about what was going on and you were concerned that there would be a lot of inquiries were there. I would say there were a handful of inquiries by email or phone. I answered most of them we are our office still plans to put up signs near the clubhouse, which is kind of the main trailhead if you will. I think we'll be doing an update online on the town website with our communications director probably I would think it'd be next week. So, yeah, we're trying to do updates. As, as work is either done or anticipated, but I think the main thing was, you know, obviously it was, you know, somewhat shocking to people to see the trees come down. I will say that almost to a person and again, I was out there a little bit this weekend and encountered a couple of people and when they actually many of the people who inquired didn't know about the solar component of the project. And when they find out what the plan is and what the plan has been, then they seem to just have a better, you know, understanding and more kind of just a broader perspective on the project. There was no option between them that, you know, honestly, without the, you know, the town entered into the, the purchase of the property with solar already predetermined. So there was no, there was no option for the town to opt out of 26 acres of solar. And I think, and I don't think it's anyone's fault, but I think it's been such a long process that that has been lost on some folks. So they think the town has chosen to move forward with 26 acres. I'm not saying the 26 acres of solar is a bad thing on that site. I'm just saying, many people have asked me in emails and phone calls. Why do, why do we the town have to do that? And I think the short answer is, that's the project we bought. We bought the land with solar predetermined on the site. So we bought it for 520,000 and the fair market value would have been 2 million. Thanks, Dave. That's more than a bargain for. All right. So next, let's see, we have a lot of other business. And I think Aaron's got it in a right the right order here kind of based on the people we have present. So I think our next item will be about the violation at 505 West Street and the possibility of working through a bundled NOI with the DPW, the MRS DPW. I see Beth, Guilford, Jason, and Paul in the call. If you guys, I'm assuming I'm going to bring you guys in if anyone else who's representing the DPW for this conversation wants to come in if you could just raise your hand. Sorry, this always takes longer than I wanted to. Ooh, I see Beth. Hi, and Guilford. Hello. This is just the four of us. We didn't bring our lawyer to us. Hi there. All right. Well, I think that's everyone. Hi, Jason. Thanks guys for making the time for this. I know this is far after hours for you. But I'm hoping this can kind of be a productive conversation that could end someplace that we're all happy about moving forward. So the first issue is the covert kind of reclamation at 505 West Street. Is there any way that we could kind of button up or that you guys would be willing to kind of button up that site so that we can protect the wetland there from further erosion concerns. I think that's just the first most important issue because that is a violation and it is our job to uphold the wetland Protection Act and the bylaws. So I think that's issue a I'm just a little confused how, how would you like us to button it up I mean it's it's completely underwater. We didn't even daylight it to the stream. We weren't charging the pipe still. We put the hay bales downstream from the outfall. And I mean we could float some straw on the puddle. But I'm not sure what that would do. Okay. There's like, maybe six inches of exposed soil on each side. Okay, do you think there's any value in doing some like waddle or any kind of madding to protect those six inches of exposed soil to prevent that from just being a source of sediment into the stream. Is there any way to further protect that. We really do much more than what the straw bales hay bales are doing downstream we could spread some straw on those little edges because madding you can't get madding to sink inside of a of underwater. Yeah, just like throwing a fish net over it. Yeah. Not sure. Yeah, so there's mostly standing water we barely exposed the pipe. So I don't know and we didn't want to go any further. We knew we were getting close to the river we just wanted the pipe to be able to actually flow out so more or less we kind of created like a sediment for bay. Right, right. Yeah, now the pipe can actually flow freely, well somewhat freely it's still back. It's still surcharged. Yeah. Gotcha. There's still backwater there. Yeah. And the soil that's exposed is like vertical. Right. So I'm sort of bluing something to it. I'm not like hydro seed. We don't have a hydro cedar. Yeah, right. No, not this time of year. Yeah, and seeding this time of year. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The upper bank closer to the parking lot on the lower half of the picture that we could probably put some matting to and use some staples because that's less of a slope. Yeah. Vertical part. I mean, we just tried to do as minimal disturbance as possible and expose the pipe. Yeah, gotcha. Yeah, some water to flow out of it. Yeah, I 100% appreciate that you guys are just trying to keep this pipe flowing. I mean, in this site, I like, know that you guys are just trying to keep this working. And I 100% appreciate that. You know, we just have to be consistent and how we deal with these situations and that's why I'm just asking for some creative thinking. I think, Jason, if you would be willing to do any kind of stabilization and the slope on the lower part of this image, that would be great. Yeah, that's what you're suggesting, right? Because it's less of like a vertical vertical at least and I guess across the way there's some that looks like they spilled over a little bit too. So, yeah. Yeah. I'm commissioned is anyone. Sorry, Jason, go ahead. I was just saying like, even like to expose the head wall more but we kind of just stopped because we're, you know, we knew we just, we found the pipe and once we did, we just wanted at least to leave some of the storm water out of it. Really. Yeah, I gotcha. I think that would be a good approach for moving forward commissioners does anyone have any other ideas for kind of protecting this site from sediment and erosion or erosion of sediment. Just get like a quick background so this pipe is was buried and is that correct. So you guys are just hoping up to try to get water to flow through. We had permission a couple years ago, put together a small list a small narrative and send some emails back and forth between Aaron and us. And, you know, we, we thought we had permission we had that small list of I forget it was 10 or 12 outfalls. And we just took too long to get around to it unfortunately. Two years later we went and did it and it was much more than we expected. Honestly, we didn't think it was buried that deep. We knew there was a pipe there but on, you know, until you go there. There's no real great way to determine where everything is about doing some exploratory digging. Yep. So that water there is from water coming through the pipe it's not like groundwater coming up or something or correct that storm water coming out of the storm water treatment. Yeah. Cool. And so that's, I'm sorry, I haven't actually seen that I haven't seen this on. I just seen the photos. So that's what I'm looking at is like six, eight inches deep. No, probably closer to a foot to a foot and a half, maybe even to honestly. Yeah, it's like right there on the left barely. Yeah, I think that's about a 12 inch pipe. I'm not even sure we couldn't even really measure it. Yep. Okay, it was doesn't look like on the other side. It's not a culvert. It's a storm water outfall. Oh, sorry. So, yeah, the letter called it a culvert, but that's all right. It's just a storm water outfall it takes storm water from up the hill from about pomeroy lane down to this location. Gotcha. There's maybe four or six catch basins and a couple of drain manholes. And I wouldn't, and I wouldn't say it's, you know, flowing, flowing heavily either, you know, it's sort of this basin sort of filled when we first emptied it, and then it's just been sort of sitting there. You know, I think one reason that it ended up getting so buried is that it just, it doesn't carry a lot of water it never created a flooding problem so we weren't in there. You know, maintaining it because it didn't create any kind of a flooding problem. That was my next question, like where it was like where. Well, there was some weird ponding on the sidewalk above and I don't know if that's been solved yet or not the spring with like spring might show us that we were chasing we've been chasing water leaks over there for a while and thinking that it was a water main leak. And there was always a puddle in the sidewalk and and I think I don't know it might have had something to do with the back of culvert but it was never anything that created traffic it might have made it as it impeded pedestrian traffic, but never really didn't really cause any issues in the road. Yeah. And so you guys dug this out and then you throw down the straw over there. Yeah, yeah, but anything that does head down towards the Brook is just another five or 10 feet away. I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill in terms of like this particular site. I think, you know, you guys clearly this was necessary maintenance I know exactly the spot. You know, hindsight being 2020 in letting Aaron know but I understand that there was like there was an effort towards communication so I don't think we need to rehash that just anything we can do. Anything you guys can do to kind of stabilize that lower slope in the picture I think that would be a great progress in the right direction and that way if we get crazy rains this spring we're not going to see that whole slope eroding into this sit ponding situation. The bittersweet we'll take back over once, once the opposite again. Yeah, it won't be as noticeable by growing season I'm sure. Okay commissioners does that seem it Jason if that's okay with you and Guilford and Paul and Beth and that seems reasonable to me. Commissioners does anyone have any questions or comments about that are we all okay with that. Aaron, can you stop sharing so I can see everyone's face sorry. Thank you for pulling up those photos. So just as far as I can see from our conversations here is that this is something that that's more of an exception that happened in essence due to a miscommunication and in the future we would expect something different now. Right now in the future you expect the same thing we give you a list. Aaron would run through and say what needs to be done and if she says it's okay we would schedule it. Hopefully in the future we act a little bit faster but as you have the same problem we have with maintenance of your conservation area sometimes we get dragged off and end up things get ended up being put off until later. Unless you want to change us and how we do our maintenance. That's fine. But right now we're still in an impression that will coordinate with Aaron the list of what we want to do. And we just need to be a little quicker on being true to what we say the data is will do it which is our shortcoming on this one I believe. But if you want to do something different let us know. Okay. Let's come back to that point. Andre did you have a follow up because. Yeah I'm just I mean so we're. So how is it that that that the culvert ended up like this. I mean, at the beginning of our conversation we were. It was mentioned that this is a violation is that correct. We're not calling it a violation we. Okay, so the, the commission's calling it a violation right. So we're trying to avoid those. Yes, where I'm going. We need to look at what we're defining as maintenance and what we're defining as significant disturbance. Yeah, thanks for saying that Jason, I think it is an existing stormwater utility. Absolutely. So I want to move. I think this is a great discussion. I just want to kind of finish the conversation about 505 West Street to make sure we're all cool on that. Let me let's let's put a pin in that Alex do you have a comment about the restoration of the stormwater infrastructure exposure at 505 West Street. Yes. Okay. Yeah, please go ahead. I was just curious to hear from Jason or go further back. What will this look like when you've got it finished. Is it, is it. Is it done now, or what how would you see the final design. There's a little bit of strong mulch and maybe some matting on it on a couple of the edges that aren't dead vertical. There's nothing we can do with underwater, unless we extend that channel to daylight it, which I don't think anybody wants. So I think it will stay as a sediment for Bay the vegetation will grow back there. I have ultimate confidence in that it was full of roots. It's a big mat of, of bittersweet roots and stems and, and I'm sure there's other other species, other other things growing in there too but I mean I'm sure it'll grow back this spring and will be as green as green as it was last year. Just with the addition to the standing water there will basically be a sediment for Bay out of the stormwater outfall. Aaron, did you have a comment about 505 the site at 505 West Street. Yeah, I do think that the exposed soils should be covered over in some fashion, not just at the outlet portion but on the side slopes where there's exposed soils. I understand that there's excessive invasives out there. But I do think that there is potential for a lot of sediment in that area and erosion in that area and I think that if this type of work is going to be happening that sort of goes beyond annual maintenance that there needs to be stabilization measures that we would require of anybody in town. You know, I wouldn't allow anybody else to, you know, dig out an area like that and just leave it exposed if they were filing for a new permit they'd be doing some sort of stabilization on the, the slopes and the outfall to make sure that that that area is not just left completely exposed to the elements. It's just rain falling and eroding the soils into the into the basin because it's just going to happen again. The other, the other sort of concern I have with this particular area is like, as Jason said that there is like a sediment for bay that's been created and normally when you're designing a stormwater BMP like a sediment for bay there's a system in place that where it's designed to hold a certain capacity and then drain. And in this case it's basically just created this pond here which is just going to sit stagnant water and and not really function properly and so I guess at on some level I think to myself like, you know, if it's not functioning it's backing up it's clogging and this is like a repeated problem that sort of a long term solution would be a really good idea in terms of why isn't it draining, you know, should we we come up with some sort of measure to make sure that it's properly draining like maybe a series of check dams that are stabilized with stone or erosion control blankets or something so that the water can actually phase out of that pond and and the turbidity can settle out of it. And it's not just sitting there like a sort of a mosquito breeding area. And, you know, year after year when it's maintained hopefully it's not dredged out and left just in an exposed manner. So I mean those are just my general comments on it that if we were permitting something, we would require stabilization and the whole long term maintenance discussion that that Jason brought up is an important one. This isn't to say that maintenance isn't allowed or annual maintenance isn't allowed we understand culvert inlets and outlets need to be, you know, cleaned out and catch basins need to be, you know vacuumed out and like and we want to make sure that that maintenance is happening. But when there's a situation where it's like a an accumulation of material that goes beyond annual maintenance that we have a system in place to identify it and have it properly dealt with in a way that sort of meets the regulations because I feel like it's not always. For example, if it's pre 1996, and there's not an active order of conditions that mandates its operation and maintenance. We may need to have additional detail in terms of how they're handling it. So I see Guilford and Beth I see you guys have your hands up. I want to really just come to a plan for 505 West Street. So, is that about 505 West Street, Beth. Okay, okay. So, with those comments, it seemed like we were getting there so Jason, you agreed that on the in the images we saw on the closer bank, where there's a little bit less of a vertical wall, we can put in some sort of matting to protect from erosion. What would it take to just pull back the vertical bank on the opposite side so that we can get some sort of madding over that. Would that be possible because the concern is just intense reeling if there's a big storm event, and just filling that right back up. Like if we were permitting this it would be like a whole thing. I don't think we need to do that here. I just want to protect those banks because they're, they don't look super stable and it's very visible. Is that a possibility. So it's going to require additional excavation like we're going to have to bring that back to like, at least the two to one slope so that something. Right, I know, I understand. And then there's nothing we can do with the part that's completely submerged in less. We take that channel. Another couple of two, five or 10 feet, honestly, we want to daylight that channel, get the water out of there we could fully stabilize that entire channel. But if we just want to do the sides we can slope those back instead of having vertical, you know we can, yeah, what we can reach with the excavator we can slope back. And then, and then we can put some madding down. Okay, pleasure I'm going to call, call, call on you. In your tenure in the concom does this seem like a reasonable stabilization of the slope is there anything else. I mean, yeah, I'm really invasive that you think would be necessary here. That's fine but is that you are, do you guys think that's like solves the, like that pooling water issue, or is the basin just kind of is it clogged. Is it functioning. The only way you can solve the ponding water is to extend the channel long right you have to dig further, right daylight it so that you, you know, till till that starts to drain. In order to see, yeah okay it's only ponding because it's just, it's wet. Yeah, well it's funding because we didn't dig it all the way to the stream, basically. You know, we, I'm trying to think of like more of a long term solution here. We're kind of short, I think we're short term here. I think it's worth waiting till the spring waiting for the wet season to come and go and seeing if it just infiltrates out during the dry season it might only be ponding because there's frozen ground. There's a very, you know, dense soil, it might actually kind of like open itself up with a few flushes, and we'll see in the, you know, see in the spring once the fall comes once the summer comes if it's still ponding we can go further and talk about any other solution, you know, potentially. So in the meantime stabilized to kind of prevent further sedimentation and then we monitor the situation and if more, if you guys need to do more in order to have that function then you can revisit this maybe in a more formal RDA kind of situation. Would that be okay. We move forward like that. Okay. Getting nothing, but since nobody's raising their hand, we're going to go with that. Fletcher. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, I would like to see a longer term solution but I think I think if you want to stabilize the situation right now wait till obviously the spring comes and goes. I agree I understand why water would be probably pulling there right now. Yeah, it's such not disagreeing with that that's totally understandable. So if we can just stabilize the site as much as possible makes people happy. Go for it. For this particular situation. Okay. Okay, great. Thanks for working together on that everyone. So I think now the best thing would be to have a discussion about how we move forward to prevent us all having to do this every time there's something that is borderline between regular maintenance and something that should be fully permitted work. Our interest here is not to create work, it's to make sure we have clear guidelines that makes it avoid situation like this in the future. So one thing that Aaron has floated that we've done with UMass actually best you worked through with UMass is a bundled NOI. And what that does is just clearly kind of segment different levels of notification and kind of interaction between the town and UMass when they want to do different activities in jurisdiction in jurisdictional areas, and then clearly delineates that an RDA or a permit is required. We actually have one of those discussions on the agenda after this tonight. So that is, that is one thing that has moved forward. And I was wondering, you know, I want to hear Beth and and Guilford, your thoughts on based based on kind of where Aaron was going with that. So I do think that that would be just a really clear solid way to delineate this moving forward and I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on that. Guilford I think your hand was up before and I don't want to miss that comment so if you want to go if you want to start feel free otherwise Beth. Beth is ready to start. Okay. Yeah, I mean I have a few thoughts on it. One thing is just. I have the knowledge that the concom sort of needs to know about all the work that DPW does in general I mean we have different division you know we have four different divisions. And we do a lot of environmental work under each of the divisions. And under the wetlands Protection Act there is that very broad exemption. It's kind of, I think the first thing we need to look at if we're going to start talking about all this stuff. And that particular statement, really, in my opinion, takes out anything having to do with water department sewer department. That statement and we can I could bring that statement up but I think at least Aaron knows what I'm talking about. And we think like, I don't know if we should get into all this tonight but it's sort of like maybe the first step would be to actually look at what's exempt and look at what DPW does on a daily basis and sort of what's already exempt under that statement I'm talking about but then also all the minor activities. There's a whole lot of parts of the Wetlands Protection Act and the town bylaw and regulations that exempt sort of various aspects to what DPW does. And I guess that would be my way of starting is like okay let's look at that first you know, and like I said I'm not quite prepared to do that tonight. Understood yeah I like that approach 100%. By no means are we suggesting that this needs to be a revamping of, you know, every DPW activity, you know that that you guys do we understand that it's a lot and we understand that you have a lot of moving parts. It's more we just want to make it clear when we're at and above the line for something that is like permitting requires permitting. Yeah, but I think that's a great, that's a great approach, we had immediate hands up I think Andre, I saw your hand first. Yeah, no I'd be very interested in seeing that the wording for those exemptions, because otherwise you're just talking about exemptions that I have no no idea what they are. Yeah. We can share something if we want to look at anything tonight but we can also, you know, have a bigger discussion some other time. Yeah, and I think I'm not. Yeah, and I'm cognizant, I mean this doesn't have to be a huge rush I'm cognizant that this is after hours for everyone I think it's something that could happen during business hours. Yeah, I think I get into the weeds tonight. But yeah, I think that's a great first approach Beth Aaron did you have further thoughts on that. Yeah, I just wanted to say to Beth's point that I wasn't referring to things that fall under directly exempted under the wetlands Protection Act but storm water isn't directly exempted. Utility exemptions for like for example, ever source or the sewer department. You know those exemptions obviously that are in the care of public utilities that are listed specifically in the act I completely agree wouldn't require to be required to be part of the, you know an operation and maintenance order of conditions what I'm talking about specifically a storm water that's not referenced. That was, that's kind of where that comment centered from. Yeah, Jason I see you and I think I see Alex has a comment to I just want to quickly clarify so Beth when you when we did the bundled I should remember this. But when we did the bundled no I with you mass I believe we started in a similar place where it was kind of like, here's giant categories of things let's figure out how to kind of allocate them in different levels of effort and communication. Again with the goal of not wasting anyone's time and talking excessively about small regular maintenance and more just making sure that we have good communication on things that aren't exempt. So, I mean, yeah, and I think you know other bundle analyze that I've seen are structured similarly. Okay. I think Jason I saw Alex's hand and I'm just going to let him make a comment and come back. Alex, did you have a question or comment. Yeah, following up on the bundling idea. The Corps of Engineers has what they call a nationwide permit for and there's several of them. And they address certain kinds of activities. So within if you have one of the activities that falls under a particular nationwide permit, then the conditions already laid out. And you don't have to go for a general, you don't have to go for a specific permit, you just follow what's in the nationwide permit. And talking about the bundling, I automatically started thinking, well that system is already invented and it sounds like Beth and you have been working with UMass on a similar kind of thing. So there's a model out there that you're kind of reinventing. And I think that that's a wonderful idea. It would save a lot of time. And it would take some work to get it worked out but once it's there. You just follow it, and it would cut down on a lot of need for the DPW coming before the concom. Alex, exactly, you're kind of translating into federal space what already exists in many, many towns around the state of Massachusetts and specifically already exists between us and UMass. And just for background, Beth was our conservation agent before Aaron. And so when Fletcher and I were on the conservation commission, Beth helped navigate that process and get that in place with UMass. So that's what we're referencing. Yeah, perfect. Exactly. You, you, you bridged it perfectly. Jason, I'm sorry, this is taking a while to get to you. I just want to reel back to the term sewer and what our definition is here because historically there's been two sewer systems oftentimes combined to the storm sewer and a sanitary sewer and the exemption applies to sewer. I don't want to be clear on what sewer we're exempting, or if it's all sewer, because there's sanitary and there's storm. Right. And I'm sure there's always heard the two are both exempt. Interesting. Okay, I think that that's probably something we could look at other DPW in town, kind of bundled NOIs I'm sure Aaron has a technical opinion. I think that's something that we would work out in this like initial kind of conversation that Beth proposed. But I hear you combine sewers, I get it. Same pipes, two different sources. I could see how that would be confusing. Guilford. And just to add to it, we're now permitted as a municipally separate stormwater system. So we carry that permit from the federal government for our stormwater system which includes these outfalls and collection systems. As we move through the MS for process we're making all of our maintenance and stuff that the difference between us and our local communities around us is we were exempt for the first permit. I don't really understand how we were exempt, but there was a little faux pas and we were left out of the first permit. And now we're in the second permit and we're catching up and doing everything in the first permit and the second permit. And the second permit period right now so there is things we're doing to inventory and determine how much sediment is being collected in different areas and then making our maintenance plan which my original my comment earlier was going to be yearly maintenance is not what you need to do all the time. Some of our maintenance may be on a five year basis or a four year basis based on the system we're maintaining. We have a couple of storm receptors that really haven't had to be cleaned out yet. We've had some that have had been cleaned out so some of our storm receptors have been in for over 10 years. So those are the things we're supposed to be quantifying as we are categorizing and developing our stormwater system in accordance with the federal guidelines that are coming up or actually we're in right now. So that's just another part of it too. There's a lot of things going on it's kind of a, yeah, stand still. I appreciate how significant the MS for requirements are and how much work that is to kind of speed and I think Beth you even was it last summer gave us a presentation on the MS for sampling program. And I remember how complicated that was so thanks go first for taking the time to explain that and fill us in. I just wanted to respond to Jason's comment about sewer and I definitely that is a point well taken. I've clarified with DEP many times on that they do not consider stormwater to be a part of that exemption and the reason that they have incorporated in the wetland protection Act regulations for operation and maintenance plans for example and they have to be built into orders of conditions where there's ongoing conditions for maintenance over long periods of time is because that exemption doesn't fall on stormwater. So that's the read I've gotten from DEP on it and I just wanted to share that. Thanks Aaron. Beth, I feel like you added maybe an MS for comment or maybe other things. Yeah, kind of a combination. Um, you know just throwing out some information about our stormwater system we have over 380 outfalls. So we, we absolutely can't clean them out every single year and we certainly do prioritize ones that typically flood meaning they just tend to be an area that gets more water or they just happen to be an area that gets, you know, sedimented in faster relieves it. So there are certain ones we clean out much more constantly than other ones and and now that is all part of the MS for work that we're doing right now as go for prevention. One part of it is a maintenance program for it includes more than just our stormwater system but it's a document that we're working on that has to do with the maintenance of a variety of things across town. The DPW does even things like, you know, landscaping and use of pesticides and herbicides and so it's a document that really inventories facilities and things and then talks about DPWs best management practices. And part of that will be the stormwater system, how to maintain. Also maybe in order to prevent duplications of efforts with something moving towards a bundled NOI that maintenance plan could roll into that informing a bundled NOI and that way, this process of weeding through everything the DPW does and figuring out how to kind of categorize it in NOI or in Wetlands Protection Act and town bylaw language, we could just instead start with everything you've already done for a maintenance inventory and move it that way and that way the timeline, you know, we're adding this on top of what clearly is a very full kind of workload. Instead, we could kind of time it so that we take advantage of the work you've done, we'll have already done on that and roll it into an NOI. Is that like at all? I think that sounds great. Yeah, I think that would be great. So it is a path forward here, just to kind of fill us in or fill Aaron in or fill David or whoever the appropriate point of contact is is like kind of on the schedule of just when you think that maintenance plan will kind of be in a living, I'm sure it's a living document at least in a place where we could then kind of scoop it into the NOI world. Is that a good just communicate about how that's going and then we pick up a bundled NOI effort once we have an understanding of how that looks. Is that a possible way forward here? I think that's a great way forward. You know, the timing on that document, I can keep people updated. It's in process, it has a little bit to do with when we have interns to help with it, but it is, it's definitely started and moving along, I guess. I don't know, Guilford, do you feel all right with that sort of process? Yes, that's fine. I think it's a good thing to do. Okay. The other thing is, I mean, I know Aaron has a comment and I don't want to volunteer, you know, I don't know. I wonder if two departments could have an intern together that could work through that. That might be an idea, just to take some of the burden off of you guys to communicate with everything else you've got going on. Aaron, yeah. Yeah, I just want to make sure that this situation on West Street doesn't detract from our overall sort of communication on those annual, bi-annual, et cetera, maintenance needs, and that, you know, we should keep those lines of communication open because this is by no means a intention of ceasing that maintenance or deferring that maintenance. What it is is, if there are situations that are really going beyond just maintenance that we can communicate on them in some manner, and if that means you guys, for example, need an emergency certification because it's flooding a roadway or it's causing flooding to residents or there's some kind of issue that is causing a public health or safety issue, please just let me know and we can issue an emergency certification and come up with some suggestions for how to stabilize it because our goal is to help you guys stay in compliance as much as possible to keep the lines of communication to work cooperatively together. I just want you guys to know that I don't want this as we're working towards a bundled NOI and developing what that's going to look like. I don't want you guys to feel like you can't come to the commission with, you know, situations which are unique or challenging and just say, hey, we have this challenging situation and Jason and I check in a lot on on those situations and so would love to keep those lines of communication open to make sure that we can, you know, work together on how to solve these problems. Great. Thanks Aaron. So it seems like we have a path forward on kind of both fronts. You have your hand up. Go ahead. Yeah, just for my clarification. Aaron, are you and Jason are the two of you and agreement about the storm water versus versus the sewer water exemptions or a little bit of something that needs to be hashed out there that you guys need to figure out. Yeah, I agree that it sounds like that conversation needs to happen. I don't think that this is the place to do it. Well, I think that there's a lot of expertise there but I'm cognizant of the time and what we have left to do on our agenda and also the time of everyone on the call. So I think that's the best way to do it. I think as Beth, kind of, or whomever at DBW who's working on this maintenance plan MS Board derived maintenance plan could keep Aaron in touch with the progress of that I think eventually when that rolls into debate whether a combined sewer is fully jurisdictional to the Wetlands Protection Act or not it sounds like the indication from DEP is that a storm system is not exempt but we, we will have to handle that in a different forum. But thank you Andre, I agree that we can't lose sight of that. Well, the reason why we're here is because of the fact that there was, there's some stormwater drainage that was that had to be maintained if you would in that there was an issue that occurred from there. So, that's right. Yeah, I want to discuss it that's fine but but that's where it's coming from. That needs to be figured out. Can I make a suggestion. Just to get us through this impasse. If it's okay with everyone. I would offer to draft a memorandum of understanding between the Conservation Commission and DPW like a simple one page kind of outline of sort of what would be considered to be normal maintenance what might be beyond the scope of that and what would sort of require inquiry with the Conservation Commission just so that we have something in writing and we can work together to craft that modify that and make sure everybody's happy with it going forward just so that in the interim while the bundled NOI is being developed we sort of have like a protocol to follow. I'm not suggesting that we do that during the meeting but like offline between staff and that we could present it to the concom and say this is kind of what we've come up with to address everybody's concern but have a protocol in place in the interim. Guilford. I mean Aaron's idea is fine. I just want to make one statement because as a public meeting and people may review this tape later. Jason did talk about sanitary and storm drain sewers and summer combined in the town of Amherst. There are no designed and permanently or purposefully installed combined sewers. Just so just a little, just a little hashtag out there for the world so we're not just people say oh yeah they said they were combined sewer or not. We're totally secret sewer separate from stormwater. Appreciate that. Okay, thanks Guilford. I think, I think Jenny did a great job here trying to I think we have an understanding here with getting together the only that means maintenance plan into some type of bundled NOI type of thing. Yes, Aaron in a in an in this agreement and what counts as maintenance and what doesn't moving forward could you just start with kind of where you were with with the emails with Jason and 2021 because I thought that was like a pretty good starting point I think the issue here is just passage of time, which frankly happens to all of us. I think just starting there because we know that we were that everyone was comfortable with that and just keeping open lines of communication. That way we don't have to do do this again, as great as you guys are. Every time one of these situation comes up. I think that would be great. And again, Jason and everyone I appreciate the creative thinking about how to kind of like stabilize 505 West Street. And that would be great, especially if we end up having a wet spring and Beth great great idea on thank you for filling us in on the maintenance planning, and that seems like it will, it will make a bundle then I process way more efficient and not like duplicate efforts. So, thank you and that way it doesn't have to be like a rushed timeline, or add more to what is clearly very, very full plates on on all counts. Um, so any other like concerns or comments. And again, everyone thank you, Guilford and Jason and Beth and Paul for making the time to be here tonight we really appreciate the open dialogue with everything. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. And I'll bug you to learn more about that permit for the culverts. Some other time. Thank you. Bye guys. Okay. Onward. Thank you, everyone. Should we do the minor administrative change from ever source Aaron. I see Kristen McDonough is on the call for you guys. Maybe we could jump on that just while she's here. Great suggestion. Kristen I'm going to bring you into the meeting I'm really sorry about that. Hi, everyone. I'm with SWCA. That was a perfect segue into what I'm here to discuss so I'm here to discuss UMass is bundled and why there is a five year order of conditions for operation and maintenance that expires in 2023. Right now UMass is looking to, oh, sorry 2024. Right now UMass is looking to expand an existing grab a lot called lot 13, which is just north of Olympia Drive. And the, there isn't a full draft plan yet there's just a concept plan but the university anticipates that it will likely be within the 100 foot buffer zone to jurisdictional bordering vegetated wetland. It will be outside the 30 foot and under the orders of conditions and that DEP file numbers 0890647. I think it's 14 C special condition 14 C minor buffer zone activities within the 100 foot buffer zone to a BBW but outside the 30 foot can be approved by the wetland agent. Significant buffer zone work that is within the 100 foot buffer zone and outside the 30 foot buffer zone can be discussed by the commission to determine whether or not that would trigger a category three, and I can go into that in more detail. But I can also share the concept plan with you if you wanted to take a peek at that. Okay. Yeah, before you share that person commissioner so you guys under like clear on kind of what the delineation is in front of us. Minor versus major activity within the 100 outside the 30. So that's kind of what we have to figure out here. A quick, a quick summary would be useful. There are some examples cited directly in the special conditions but we can also look at the wetlands protection act Aaron correct me if I'm wrong 10.02 which describes minor activities. Right. So, in this case, they're asking for a parking area. I wouldn't say that a parking lot would qualify as a minor activity under the minor activities. You know that are in the wetlands protection act. I think I wasn't here when this permit was passed and I think they're, as Kristen said there are some specific examples that are cited in the order of conditions which by the way I think is in your one drive packets, at least I hope it is. If not, I can pull those pull up the full order of conditions. So I also touched it to the letter dated February 8. Oh yeah, which I believe is in the in the correspondence. Is it. Should be. The examples that are given aren't really apples to apples per se with with a parking lot. So and part of what is I guess, difficult for me to navigate is when I started in February of 2019. You mass requested a parking lot on this basically the same exact lot. And that parking lot. You know, I was just getting integrated into the functions of the conservation commission and it was an expansion of an existing parking lot. And, and so that was a project that move forward under this permit so just for transparency there was a parking lot that is just I want to say west of this location where parking lot was expanded. This parking lot is a completely new parking lot so in that case, the parking lot was expanded from existing parking lot into an area that was overgrown with like multi floor rose. It's a existing forested area, and it's on the east side of the same wetland so if I'll make this shareable so Kristen you can share a plan and we can see where those are. So I think, from my perspective, expansion of an existing parking lot where there wasn't a lot of clearing was a little less impactful per se than the proposed new parking lot which is in completely forested location. I'm also a little bit worried about sort of the cumulative impact of this because you get one parking area that's expanded. And the area of expansion, just kind of try to highlight it a little bit for you guys. So this was the existing parking area it may have actually even been more over into here and it was expanded up in this area here. And so it was, and actually even over into this area. So, I believe, if that's correct. And then, so that was sort of the expansion of that existing parking and it's a gravel area that was multi floor rose. This area is all forested and I could share with you guys a photo of what the forest looks like there just to give you a sense of it. So it's kind of it's not really an apples to apples. Consideration for me it's a it's like a little bit more impactful than what was already proposed and also sort of the cumulative impact of the two parking areas, one on each side of the wetland is is a little bit concerning to me just because I'm not sure what the original intent of the order of condition was in terms of activities that the commission considered to be minor if they were actually referencing the minor activities under the Welland Protection Act or if they, if members had more you know specific activities in mind that they thought should be acceptable. Yeah, so related but separate. Also, what is the status of the UMass enforcement order that's existing in terms of like what we have going on with UMass. So here's a quick update on that SWCA completed the wetland delineation before the end of the growing season. So the commissioners have not finished their limited land survey or engineering the culvert replacement. So we haven't, we haven't moved forward with completing the NOI, we were hoping to get that done this winter, so that we could start construction during low flow, August. We're still hoping to hold on to that schedule but we're waiting for engineers right now. Thanks Kristen. So just, oh, I see David's done. I'll defer today. Okay. Yeah, I guess my question is for Kristen. And I may not have caught all of this but I was here through the entire, you know, period when UMass brought the plan the O and M plan forward so could you just, I guess refresh my memory. So how is the building of this new lot, which really isn't connected it's, it's really pretty much connected to a public way how is that part of an O and M plan and not simply a new project. I might have missed that. Well that's really what we're here to bring up to the commission. I mean, there were some examples cited in the special conditions of what would be considered minor buffer zone work under this O and M and that included. Oh, hang on, I got some cited somewhere. Well, significant was the convert one of the examples cited for significant buffer zone work was the conversion of gravel lots to paved lots within the buffer zone. I think I have some citations and the letter. So, and this italics is right out of the order so minor projects within the 30 foot. Maybe I put the examples in the email sorry guys. And, you know, I think there's some logic when UMass some years ago was talking about say, a gravel lot to a paved lot. They're in pointed out a couple of minutes ago this is a fully forested hillside there north of Olympia Drive. So I'm, I guess I'm a little challenged to see how this would be conversion of anything it's, it's, it's the construction of a new parking lot. So we're here to do whatever the commission recommends we just, you know, and as you said earlier Jen, as part of this bundled in oh I know and I'm keeping the lines of communication open. Yeah. And Chris is that yellow dash that is at the hundred foot. Hey, I have a new delineation so on this plan we're showing the 30 foot and the 50 foot which under the revised by law would be required for the setback for a gravel parking lot and then this is the hundred foot. This one's from Woodward Woodard and current and I don't know if I have a legend on this. So, I think that is that has got to be the 30 foot because the plan was for it to be within the hundred and outside the 30. So that's my guess. Yeah, that's pretty significant. And how, how many, how big is this parking lot how many cars. I don't have that answer. I do know that there, this doesn't show any stormwater management associated with this but there will be some stormwater associated with it eventually. This is just an early concept. And just for reference that. So we did the math, we just did the matter building right now I'm just trying to, they're going to do new construction on that aren't they. Yeah, there'll be a demolishing. Yeah, I'm just doing for. Sorry, that was just from my reference point there. Yeah, Aaron I see sorry guys, Aaron I see your hand up I just want to say quickly, like Chris and you know, based on my tenure and kind of the outlines of this project I don't think this is minor, but I want to hear from the commission. And my second comment is I'm pretty uncomfortable with an open enforcement order and no NOI submitted moving forward with more activity with UMass that enforcement order is a pretty big deal. And I think getting an NOI submitted on that is really important to this commission I know that DP is paying attention to the progress of that. So that's that's where my gut is going but I'm interested to hear from everyone else Aaron did you have more info to add to that you do took the words right out of my mouth. But I just to add to that I know Kristen said that they were hoping to get the NOI submitted this winter the enforcement order as I recall required that they get the NOI submitted this winter and it's frustrating to me that you know there's there's work being directed towards additional parking and additional projects when the enforcement response is stalled because of, you know, a survey not being completed. I'm just I'm underscoring and putting an exclamation point behind what you just said that that that needs to get resolved and that we are very concerned that other projects are being put in front of or higher priority on in terms of getting them done before addressing the enforcement outstanding. And we know you're just the messenger here Kristen so let us know how to communicate this, if, if necessary. Just one other point I want to make is, is I do it does worry me a little bit the precedent of this the potential precedent of this brand new parking lot in a essentially undisturbed forested area, you know, do I think it could be permitted or but I, I really think it's, it's a separate permanent permitting process from the bundled NOI that we have with UMass which was really for, you know, maintenance routine maintenance and, and yeah, you know, the commission, you know members of the commission allowed the parking lot to the west to happen but that was, for the most part already a graveled parking lot anyway so this just seems like a very different project. I will say also that, you know, we do have a the town has a very large residential development just to the east of this and, you know, I just think, the residents will deserve, you know, kind of a full open review of this product of this project so it will impact the neighborhood on Olympia Drive. Yeah. I wanted to hear from commissioners. The other comment just quickly that I'll make is, is this within the tanbrook catchment. I think it's outside. I think it's, it's in the more northern, more northerly watershed going in the opposite direction. Okay, Holly Brook is over there. Okay, so just, just for reference, this just kind of off the page here is Tilson farm. Yeah, I don't know if you remember the Tilson farm permitting that happened several years ago that was down by Holly Brook so that's just kind of to the northeast. Okay. Thanks, Kristen. Yep. All right commissioners any other anything to add that we haven't already kind of established. I'm seeing I agree I just, I just want to say I agree. We have an enforcement or that's open. So we should probably handle that first and then this is definitely more than minor. Yes. Okay, thanks Cameron. Same here. And Andre. It seems like we're almost unanimous Kristen on not a minor activity and we need to see the permit filed then open enforcement order. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. Oh, Alex, I see you have your hand up. Just a quick question for Christian. Who would this serve it with this parking lot serve the student dorm that's there now, the student housing that's there now, the residential community. Obviously UMass isn't going to build a parking lot for the residential community and take that back. Would it serve 47 Olympia Drive that's going to go up. Who parks there, who would park there. From what I understand this is associated with student parking. Generally speaking. Yes, I. So a commuter would come in park your car, get on a bus and go wherever he needs to go. That's, that's a theory. I mean, I know that there is, there are student buildings down here. And so this is an over full parking lot, and this is an over full parking lot. And so this is supplemental parking for those existing buildings. Yeah, wasn't there a protest there. The parking, the students protested there was no parking. Oh, I don't know that. Okay. Okay, this is all. Well, there's a need, I guess. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, thank you. I just was just just background for me. And it's interesting to just wear the water drains and you said is would be gravel. Yes. How many gravel parking lots are there on UMass campus. That's a great question. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that lot 13 is all gravel. So this would be a lot 13 and this is all lot 13 and this is all gravel. And I think a little bit behind cold storage drive. That's it. Okay. I think we have a lot of gravel by forestry way. Yeah, back there, but. And they are gravel so that they allow infiltration. Yes. Thank you. Okay, I think that we should, I think we've kind of signaled what we need to signal here and I want to keep it moving. Any other questions, Kristen, do you have a clear. Okay. I'm good. Just actually really quick. So just to clarify, it's the commissions. It's the commission's opinion that we should have an NOI filed prior to a permit application for a lot 13. But not that that enforcement would necessarily be closed. Or that the enforcement would be issued. I think. I think that that we just need to start getting the ball rolling on. Yeah, it can't just sit on, you know, unaddressed while we, you know, go ahead and permit another project. Yeah. Or at least review another project. Gotcha. That's good to know. Thank you very much. Aaron, did you have, I have one more question and I'm really sorry, but this is just bothering me because it's on the plan. Kristen in the north. West corner of that wetland it shows the wetland extending into the 30 foot. And I know as part of the over here. Yeah, as part of the original approval, it was supposed to be at least 30 feet away. So I'm wondering it looks like it's encroaching there. And if that's an error of some sort, I have to look back at the original plan that was approved, but I just wanted to flag that. And the other comment I did want to just make was Kristen had indicated to me that that that area and I didn't know this previously, but this area is a potential potentially a vernal pool. So that was something that wasn't disclosed when the other original parking lot or the parking lot expansion was approved. And so just to flag that for commissioners because we have 100 foot no disturb around rental pools. And I was just disappointed that we didn't know about that before that other one was permitted, but it's kind of water over the bridge at this point. It's not listed as a potential vernal pool on the natural heritage website. It just when I went out there into the delineation. It looked like it could be I mean this is winter. So this is from the eastern end looking west and just to flash back to that plan. It's like, maybe, maybe it's this little pocket right here so I'm standing here facing west. Okay, so I don't think that would even really affect over here because this is all and I have other photos showing with the rest of that BDW looks like it's a really transitional wetland. It's actually pretty tricky delineation because it's just so transitional. And there's so much non native species out there is a lot of buckthorn, and it's immersed so you can imagine what that looks like. I appreciate you clarifying the location of it because I thought for some reason it was further west. So that makes me feel better anyway. And this concept does have an outdated I think this is the DEP layer and this is the newer wetland so you know this doesn't show the rest the west side of it because we didn't refresh the west side, but you know the wetter pool is right north of a 12 so it's this wet spot right here for for context. For some reason doesn't connect. I could not find a culvert that goes between here and this island well and in here. Despite a couple different delineations, never found a culvert. So we'll get back in front of you with a permit application for this and we will see you soon for the forestry way and why and if you have any questions in the meantime feel free to give us a call and you're going to answer questions anytime. Okay, thanks Kristin. Thanks all. Thank you for the middle person. Thanks again, I appreciate it. Good night. Have a good night. All right. Okay, we still have to Fino and so nine 79. Yeah, so to Fino we're kind of not going to vote on tonight. Yeah, I didn't go out. Yeah, I wasn't able to get out there and I talked to Ted Parker. There was some last minute information that Chris Brestrup and Jason skills made me aware of about some outstanding. I just want to get a little more information on. And then, but the, but the overall goal of this is to close out the existing order of conditions and get a new one, so that we're not working with a 2004 order of conditions so I'm going to continue striving towards that goal. And hopefully at the next meeting we'll get that to you. Okay, okay, so yeah commissioners just to summarize or restate what Aaron just said so to Fino is up in air in Amherst Woods there's like basically the storm water infrastructure but not there's like still an outstanding road that has to be built and the initial permit for like a bunch of buildings and lots up there was issued in 2004. So what we'd like to do is close out the certificate of compliance for that 2004 effort and have a new order of conditions for actually putting in that road, but in order to do that well. So Aaron wants to get some clarity on kind of what exists out there how it's being maintained and like, kind of get the intel she needs in order to have that order of conditions ready for discussion. So it just makes the most sense to wait until Aaron has a chance to collect all that info before we formalize that discussion. So that's the update on that one. Ever source minor administrative change Aaron. Yes, so. At the last meeting we approved a replacement electrical service for 797 southeast street an underground cable replacement that services a single family home. Everything was approved as far as what had been originally proposed. They had come before the board, as you probably all recall with proposed use of rubber matting for basically as a BMP to protect the wetland during construction for the construction equipment so that the wetland wasn't damaged or compacted by the equipment during the construction because the wetland is very tight on either side of the driveway. As they were, they're approaching basically moving forward with the replacement because it's faulting out and there's a lot of problems there. They were concerned that they didn't include enough of the temporary matting. And so they wanted to account for more just in case the vehicle access with equipment was there was a potential for greater impact they wanted to put more matting down just to be prepared for that. So I see this is a very good thing like a, you know, it would be a temporary impact of the mats being placed. I've seen these mats used many times they prevent compaction of the wetland they're very temporary measure and it prevents the wetland from getting completely chewed up and disturbed during the equipment access. So they're just checking with us to see it was an increase from 15 square feet to 90 square feet. Not a tremendously huge area and basically just wanted to check with the commission that you guys were good with that before I issue the order of conditions. Two thumbs up. Thank you ever source for the communication. I think that is belt and suspenders. We are in good shape. Great. Okay, I think that was it for our agenda. Unless there's anything I didn't know about Aaron. No, that's everything. All right. Thanks everyone. This was a, I know this was a lot to get through. Yeah, I appreciate everyone's attention. Yeah, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn. Sorry. I think Cameron got it. Yes. All right, voice vote Cameron. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex. Hi. I'm an eye unanimous thanks Aaron. Awesome. Good job guys soon. Have a good night.