 Okay, so we are recording now so good evening everyone that this is the Amherst Conservation Commission and today is October 14 2020. So start off with comments for me I just have one question for you David one heads up. I don't know if you know the, I'll just call it the little shack that is kind of behind Haskins Meadow. The shack, the shack out in the woods to me. Yeah it's kind of like an old well or something like that. Yes. Yeah I mean so one of the sides has fallen down and it's filled with water. And it's kind of dangerous. Okay. Yeah, I have not been out there since we bought it. So I will take a look at that. Is it a couple feet deep Brad or I can't recall how deep. I put in a big stick and I didn't find the bottom. So it could have been that just really mushy though too I didn't dig around to your worried you're worried about kids if a kid fell in there or something like that. Exactly. Yeah. And it looks like there was a there were four walls and somebody boarded it up at one point but one of the walls has fallen down at this point I don't know if that's recent or not. Yeah, it's kind of a mystery kind of a mystery shack out there when it was part of a well or something. Yeah, it's definitely kind of strange. Yeah, we will figure that out. Okay, thank you Dave so just a heads up on that. So, yes that's it for me so Aaron did you want to go or do you want to, or I'm sorry I guess Dave did you want to go now. I know you've got a big agenda tonight and I actually can't be with you the whole night but I'll be very brief just a couple of updates around around town. I know that Brad is coordinating with the folks at Coles to install the story walk that you all approved up at the lower Mill River. I did see the, I did see the prototype and they look really nice they're going to be very simple, very nicely done, you know pressure to you treated poles with a nice display of the pages of the books. So I know that they're trying to coordinate that now. Is that me feeding back or no. That was a dog Dave. Oh, that was a dog. Okay, sorry. Let's see. Bluebird Meadow we're on the theme of signs. So we are coordinating with Carol Gray. We do have her signs for bluebird Meadow this is the conservation area off of Southeast Street right before the underpass, the southern underpass. And we just kind of find some time to get in there and place those signs. We did. We did close with the Allison's and the Kestrel trust on that seven acres gift that you all approved a couple of weeks ago so we are the proud owners of seven acres of additional conservation land up on the Mount New York range. We're going to start right off of Bay Road at sweet Alice that'll essentially just be added to the sweet Alice conservation area. You may have, you may have read associated with that you may have read in the newspaper that Kestrel has committed to putting their offices at the Epstein house. It's exciting that was always the vision. They were exploring the financial and other feasibility of that project so the good news is they are moving ahead with a modest renovation of that 1960s house. I think they hope to be in there in the spring. So it'll be nice to have a presence on the range. They can help us with programming and bringing more people to explore the Mount Hoyok range and, and all it has to offer. Okay, that's going to just be a office or is it also be a visitor center or anything along those lines. At this point they don't plan it to be a visitor center I think you know everybody is looking kind of down the road post COVID. I do think they will eventually run some programs out of there. They may have some workshops. They certainly might, you know, you know, invite people to be there for special occasions but I don't think they plan to staff it like you would say the Hitchcock Center on a weekend or, or something of that sort. The parking will be kind of limited I think there'll be spaces for something like 11 cars, but it'll give us a presence. It'll really be a nice jumpstart for us to connect all the trails. There's parking or enhance parking going. You know around the corner we've talked about where we're going to have the parking area off of the new subdivision road off of West Street so those houses are moving along quickly and you know I suspect late spring of 21 will get going with the trail connection there. So yeah a lot happening down there in the Mount Holyoke range. And then lastly just a little plug for Brad and Tyler, it has been this the summer of downed trees, you know all these these storms these flashy storms microburst coming through North Amherst South Amherst, Lawrence Swamp, Pulpah Hill Road. I just these guys can't get a break. And you know even in the last five days more trees down we're getting lots of emails lots of calls which are wonderful. But you know some of these trees are just massive you know 100 foot white pines and, you know, I give credit kudos to Brad and Tyler for it's just the two of them now all of our summer staff have left so I was just where was I boy I'm blanking on where I was recently and I guess it was in lower Mill River and was surprised to see how many trees were down there huge trees that they have cleared off the trail between Mill River Recreation and Poverts Bond. So, it's going to be doing that into 21 into the winter, which is a great time to clear trails but if you see things out on trails your dog walking your hiking your running your biking. Shoot him an email and they will add it to the list we're going to be doing this for probably months. Let's say speaking of upper lower Mill River. Just if you know we've gotten a fair number of calls there is a gentleman up below Poverts Bond below the dam, who is very active, shall we say in making cars in the brook there. And we've done a little outreach to him. He's very energetic shall we say and he's made a lot of cars and he's also made some kind of natural sculptures in the woods, which some people have been, you know, somewhat offended by just simply the use of natural materials and and he made a large bird nest, etc. So, I won't go into great detail perhaps some of you have been down there hiking but we are trying to kind of outreach to him and and and in the best way possible really discourage him from doing that. He's moving a lot of rocks and disturbing a lot of habitat and it just needs to stop so we'll keep an eye on that. But we're trying to be as kind of understanding as possible with with him so. So who it is though Dave. We do. Yeah, yeah. So conversations are kind of ongoing with him so we will, we'll see how that goes but if you do get reports we know about it we're on it, and we'll just try to convince him as winter approaches that this is a little too much a Eric are in there. I don't have a problem but when you make 50 of them in the stream that it really becomes something a little bit more than, you know, is necessary. So, I think I will stop there. Excellent. Okay, thank you very much Dave so any questions or comments for Dave. I see Larry is talking but I can't hear him. There you are. I think you're off mute. No Larry your audio is just not working. Larry your audio is not working we can't hear you even when you're off mute. I wonder if he could call in. Nope. We can read your lips though. Yeah because we don't have like a chat window or anything set up. Okay so hopefully he'll have that set up in a sec so. So Aaron why don't we go over to you so we have at least 20 minutes or so before our first. Okay, so the first thing. I mean there's there's a bunch of other business items and I'll try to kind of sprinkle those in as we have breaks in the evening. But I did just want to make you guys aware of the ever source proposal for mitigation on podic conservation land that has been submitted to us in the form of a notice of intent application. This is mitigation for some wetlands work that they're doing at podic substation I think you guys have been briefed on this. This is the last few months several times that we had been in communication with them. And this was the initial design that they submitted to us. And in the upper left you can see this is the field at podic conservation area they delineated the wetlands out there and then they planned up in this upper left hand corner this. Replication area and then within that they planned to put to. To design to vernal pools. And you know when we had initially started conversations with them the idea was to create vernal pools that could provide some habitat for the. Oh my gosh wow. Eastern Spadefoot to thank you. Eastern Spadefoot was what we were targeting. And so when we got this proposal which we got very little lead time in reviewing or giving feedback on basically they presented it to me on a Friday I told Dave about it. And then on Monday they submitted it as part of the notice of intent. And then they reached out to Jake Kubel from natural heritage asked him to go out to the site asked him for some feedback and he's given us quite a bit of comment I don't know. He was. He had made arrangements to go out to the site I don't know if he actually made it out there because I actually had to cancel. I was supposed to meet him and I ended up having to cancel last minute. Meeting him. I don't know Dave if you. Yeah, he called me from the site I was not able to join him but he did make it out there. Okay. All right. So, I will follow up with Jake between now and the upcoming meeting on October 28, but this is more or less just to give you a heads up that this is going to be on the agenda. So, I'm going to go through some staff recommendations based on Jake's comments from visiting the site and also he had some just initial comments based on the design for how to improve this first fade foot so if we can communicate with ever source and get revisions may or BSE and get revisions made prior to the meeting. Modifications to the plan. But just wanted to present that initially and make sure you guys were aware of it. And Aaron, can you remind me if they're proposing to do anything with the beavers out there. Yes, so there's, as part of this proposal, you know, part of this is mitigation. Part of our agreement with them to allow them to do this mitigation is that they remove the beavers that are out there that are flooding the entire property. The beavers are also flooding the ever source right of way and creating a safety issue and it's just becoming more and more flooded out there by the day so they're they're planning to remove the beavers and then do this. So that's their replication on the site kind of as an exchange of benefits for both of us. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I just saw something on the map about beavers and I just couldn't remember where that stood. So thank you. Brett, by way of background, could I just give the commission just one minute of background, you know, why spade foot toads why, why here. So, as you may recall this parcel which is about, I think it's about 23 acres, we acquired in a partnership with Castro trust it was part of a much larger preservation effort that spans over into Hadley it's about 190 acres. It was one of the largest farms on the Hadley side. One of the largest unprotected farms in Hadley. So long story short, I've been doing research over on Eastern spade foot toads and Hadley Sunderland for 20 odd years, working with the state working with local folks and we have quite a network now of spade foot enthusiasts that go out during the summer and and try to look for them. The other line is what we're finding is that one of the limiting factors of course is the, the temporary ponds that they use, which often are in conflict with farmers goals and objectives on their property so we as we looked at this is very ambiguous with some some areas that I have found spade foot in Hadley, and we thought this land is now permanently protected. The habitat is reasonable open, you know farmland, and I think, as Aaron and I spoke and will speak to the state folks. The idea is that if ever source is willing to create a vernal pool to the specifications that that meet the state's requirements for spade foots that this might be an interesting pilot project it's accessible it could be a great education program. We want to make sure we do something there that doesn't to to significantly impact future uses of that of that field we talked about perhaps doing community gardens, maybe leasing some of the land out to farmers so we think there's a potential win win so that's kind of rounding out why why now why there why why eastern spade foot. They are, they are certainly losing habitat and losing losing numbers throughout the state so this is one of the only areas that they occur in the state of Massachusetts. So, thanks. Dave just being kind of selfish from the UMass side of things is Scott Jackson aware of this because I think he and some of his classes would be extremely interested in visiting this I don't know anything they can do to help but it's a great example. I'm not aware of this because it's really just kind of evolved over the last couple of weeks but you know I'm regularly in touch with Scott and we could easily loop him in. And as you said it might be a very interesting. There's another one of these that I helped work on with actually Pete Westover who's on this call as well years ago up in Sunderland. So, we, we worked with the state and guest role and they created a vernal pool specifically designed for spade foots, the spade foots haven't found it yet, but we're still hopeful. They also translocate eggs or tadpoles from a known pond to one of these bonds, and then they disperse the spade foots young disperse around the pond, and then hopefully come back to that, that pool when it fills to breed again so lots of potential for study and research and whatnot here. Thank you Dave, that's exciting and yeah great location great, a great project. So the next item I wanted to bring up before we get too deep in the in the reads tonight is that for November we have some scheduling issues. The second Wednesday in November is Veterans Day, and then the fourth Wednesday is the day before Thanksgiving, and and then. So it doesn't leave us too many options really for meetings in November. So the second possibility for us to consider is November 18, which falls between the 11th and the 25th on a Wednesday. I don't know about Commissioner availability that day, or that evening. And then in December, the ninth is fine. The 23rd is the day before Christmas Eve. I just wanted to give you guys a heads up about this before we start continuing hearings tonight because I just am concerned. We already have a request for a continuation the first meeting in November and we're not going to be holding that regularly scheduled meeting. I know we had discussed this really early in the year like January and there was some talk about just canceling the November meeting but business has been so heavy that I don't want to worry about that I mean if we could try to have one meeting in November and one meeting in December I think that would be beneficial. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense I mean yet none in November one in December we're just going to get hammered later on. So even just being selfish. Yeah. So the 18th works for me. So I assume you're proposing it Aaron so that it works for you. What about other commissioners does the 18th work we at least get a quorum that day. It works for me as well. For me too. It works for me I won't be here in the 11th anyway so that's that 18th works fine. Okay, good. Okay, so that schedules that's that settles that and then for December you think just having the meeting on the regularly scheduled meeting on the ninth and canceling the meeting on the 23rd would be the prudent thing to do. We definitely want to cancel the 23rd. Okay. I just don't think we'll get a good turnout that day I mean we can do one after that if need be but usually usually things slow down a little bit around there but. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, okay. Maybe we can just punt at this point Aaron and on. I mean, yeah I guess we can send everyone an email because probably deciding on the ninth be too late. Yeah. Well, I don't think we're going to be rescheduling anything to the ninth or continuing anything to the ninth tonight so we could just plan on scheduling for the 18th and then see what happens. I mean we can plan to keep the ninth on but as of right now, nothing is scheduled for that day, but the 23rd I think doesn't make any sense to keep on so. Just FYI if we have a meeting on the ninth and then we and we cancel the 23rd which sounds like it's our current plan. We go from December 9 to January 13 without a meeting, which I mean, not the worst but thought that would be a helpful data point as we think about this. Yeah, definitely and I mean, business I mean like like Brett said I think a lot of times with other commit, you know concoms I've worked for winter is a very slow or it slows down significantly but it's that business is picked up so dramatically over this fall that it's tough to gauge right now with COVID because there's so many projects going on that might otherwise not be. Yeah, so I mean probably at least tentatively we should pencil in let's say for the, would that be the 16th of December. Yeah, I mean so if need be, but yeah hopefully we don't need it. Yeah, so there's, so there's the Wednesdays in December are the second ninth, 16th, 23rd and 30th. The 30th might also be an option. I mean it's, but I think a lot of times people go away between Christmas and New Year's too so that might not be a great week to do it but I mean I'm good with whatever you guys decide and the 16th is fine for me to so. Yeah, I don't know how many people are traveling this year anyways. That's true. That's also true. But at least we know what we're doing for November we can, we can strategize for December when we get there. Okay. Do you want me to jump to some other business since we have just a few more minutes before the first hearing. Yeah, and then for 730 isn't that one being continued. It is. Yeah, just checking on that and so anybody who fellow commissioners and people from the public just let you know 730 is going to be continued and that's the UMass dredging one. Yep, and we don't have another hearing until 740, but I have plenty of other business to keep us occupied until then so I'll jump to other business and then we can pivot back. So I think this might be the easiest one for us to jump to right away. I got an email from a staff person at Amherst College with a request for an emergency certification to repair a bridge which they discovered had a safety issue. They're not looking to. They're not looking to replace the bridge they're not looking to do anything dramatic just do some hand dug footing replacements just to keep the bridge safe for people using it. The pictures are kind of hard to see but there's in the bottom, the bottom two photos there's some close ups that the edge of the bridge is basically sort of on the edge of a, on the edge of a bank right now, which is on the verge of collapsing so they more or less just wanted to put some posts underneath it just to hold it and make it safe temporarily till they kind of figure out a long term plan is kind of my understanding. So if that makes sense and I'm sorry if you already mentioned Aaron where is this bridge. It's, it's on Amherst College property, and I'm in talks with Amherst College because they're doing some, some work on their trail systems and some, they've got some bridge replacement projects that are coming down the pike, but this is just an emergency or an immediate safety concern that they would like to just shore this up so no one gets hurt. So where on Amherst College this one is. Um, I don't know the exact pinpoint location. I've been, they've given me a couple different bridge location points that are in the property. So it runs parallel to College Street. In that land there and I'm, I'm assuming that this is one of those that they sent me a map of. Yeah, I don't have a problem with this just curious and yeah I was talking with Kate sins the other day and I think she said she's going to be bringing a bunch of stuff in front of us coming up. Yes, yep. Um, so does anybody is there anything else on that Aaron or is there any questions on this one. Yeah, I think this is. And just as an FYI they they with this storm that happened just a few days ago they got a lot of dead, or a lot of trees fell down over their trails, and they are planning to clean up a lot of the trees that fell. I did let them know, you know, if, if a tree is dead or a limb is dead down in the, in the path it's okay to, you know, move it or clear it but that they can't take down any live trees. So I did let them know that. Yeah, they have a couple of fairly decadent stands there that are, they're mature and they're going to be coming down pretty soon by themselves, like some of those pine stands are dangerous. So I'm not hearing anything. So I guess we're looking for a motion at this point for emergency cert for the bridge on Amherst College. So nobody has to jump, but yeah. I have to help out so moved. That works. So, so we have a motion from Larry looking for a second. Second. Thank you. Okay, so vote at this point so Larry. Yes. Hi. Hi. Jen. Hi. Anna. Abstain. Laura. Aye. And I from me. So yep. And I should also mention that we got a note from Fletcher and he, he apologizes for not being able to make it tonight. So. Okay. So I'll just jump back up to the UMass dredge project. They were scheduled for seven 30 and. In your meeting packets this week that I shared via one drive was the correspondence for Mickey Marcus requesting the extension. There was also a document which is the MEPA certificate that Mickey sent. So that document is available for your review. They did request a continuation to November. And then at that point, I think they're basically going to more or less start over because they've had so many revisions to the project. Since the initial presentation that they're going to basically start over with a presentation in November from what I understand. Okay. And this, we didn't open this one yet. So we don't really need a continuation. Is that correct? Yeah. It was opened. I believe at the end of last year. But they've been dealing with getting MEPA certificate for a one water quality certification, a lot of permits from Boston that take quite a long time. And so they've just been requesting continuances. Okay, I remember. Yeah, I remember they breathe, or they told us about this a long time ago. Okay, so that means that we need a motion for continuation. And so that would be on the 18th of November. And do you have a time for us, Aaron? 730. I move to continue this to the 18th of November at 730 p.m. Okay, going for a voice vote Laura. Hi. Anna. Hi. Jen. Hi. Leroy. Hi. Larry. Hi. Thank you. Thank you for me as well. Okay. All right. We'll have time for at least one more. Yes. So we received a request for certificate of compliance from 426 State Street. You guys may recall this was a small single family home that needed a new distribution. It was through a BVW and riverfront. So we did require $2,500 be provided to the town for restoration plantings along the Mill River and Cushman Brook. Those funds were provided to us. I did go out and I've worked really closely with BSC and Eversource. I did a pre-construction out there, inspected erosion controls after the work was done. I went out and did an inspection and gave them permission to remove erosion controls. The site is. I mean, I don't know if anybody else has taken a ride by here, but I was shocked to see how little impact. I mean, relatively from prior to the work to after the work, it was just really, they did a great job. And everything has come back more than 75% revegetated. And so I would recommend that the board issue a complete. A complete certificate of compliance on the project. Sounds good. Anybody have any questions on this one? Nope. Sounds good. Okay. So looking for a motion for a certificate of completion. Yep. I move to issue a certificate of completion for 426 state street. Okay. So I'm not quite sure who got the second, but Aaron will. Okay. So voice vote on a. Larry. Hi. Leroy. Hi. Jen. Hi. Laura. Hi. Take it, everybody. Okay. And I for me as well. Jumping around. One more thing that we could just handle right now. If the board wants to. So later in the meeting, I'm going to go ahead and talk about some of the things that we need to do. That runs from POTX substation to the Sunderland town line. I issued an emergency certification to ever source to begin work. On the cable as of October 1st. But they did file a request for determination. I mean, within a matter of days after the emergency cert was done, they wanted to get started on it as soon as possible. Because. A number of people along the line between POTX and, I guess it goes a ways into Sunderland. Have been continually losing power because of the compromise line. So they wanted to start on it as soon as possible, but they are also going to be picking up after the 30 days with the POTX substation. So that's what we're going to do. So essentially what I'd be looking for from the board on this is just to ratify the emergency certification that was issued to them already. Okay. And then the RDA is, we'll do that separately. Yeah, that'll be the fourth. Hearing, I guess of the sea. I mean. The fourth time on the agenda this evening. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So looking for a motion unless there's any questions or comments on this one, looking for a motion for emergency to ratify the emergency, sir. So moved. Second. Okay. Voice vote. Anna. Hi. Laura. Hi. Larry. Hi. Jen. Hi. Leroy. Hi. And I for me as well. Okay. And by magic. Thank you very much, Aaron, for your magic. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That's exactly 740. Okay. So. If you are here for the continued to Fino. Hearings. If you can raise your hand. And so Ted, I assume you are here for that. In the list. And then I do see art here as well. And Kristen as well. Okay. So Kristen Ted and art, you should all have. You're all here for the continued to Fino. And I'm going to be at this point. So you're all able to speak. And so just as a reminder, we are now opening our to Fino hearings. Oh, trying to remember which ones we're dealing with. Cause there's a. Are we dealing with one, two, five, six, seven, eight. I thought we're just dealing with a few of them today, Aaron. No one and two. Yeah. There was some confusion at the last meeting about which ones were being continued and which ones were not. And so, you know, you know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Lots one and two were, were being paused basically for them to kind of figure out. What they were doing with those. And if I remember correct, they were going to come back today and kind of give us sort of an update on one and two. Yeah. I think we continued them just as a courtesy for them to, to give them a little time. To figure that out. But after today, I think. You know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know how to kind of read, read determine how to move forward. Okay. So why don't we just start off with one and two. And so Ted, are there any updates on this? So we cannot hear you at this point, Ted. How about now? We can. Yes. Okay. I actually requested at the last meeting that one and two. That was a meeting that was going to be suspended. Whatever the term was that would require a re notification of the abutters when we figured out what we wanted to do. Okay. Okay. So you'd like to. Okay. So why don't we, as long as you're still good with that, why don't we go ahead, Erin? And so can you tell us the technical. Side of that Erin of how we want to do that table at suspended? Yeah. I mean, so I think that the issue I had raised at the last meeting with that is so that there's, you know, a lot of the technical processes that you can go through with that. You can ask the board to render a decision and just. I mean, the board could essentially deny it. And then you could reapply. That's one option. Another option is to withdraw. And then the third option is essentially just to let the continuation, the public hearing laps, which would require reopening of the public hearing by notifying a butters and reposting a legal ad. So the only option that I have with that last third option is that I'd like to have some kind of a. All park idea of when we would be reposting them because keeping them hanging open for a long period of time is just not, not a good practice. Typically they'll just be withdrawn if there's going to be a long period of time between. Reexamined. So I think, I think that the idea was that we were going to get an idea of whether it was going to be in the near future or kind of if they were going to be withdrawn and then reapply or kind of how to broach that. So Ted, do you have any sort of ballpark that you can give us or any thoughts from the owner? The owner was waiting to see what the. Disposition of the other loss was going to be. And so I. Does withdrawing them involve having to complete another application with another fee and the entire process starts again. You would reapply. Yes. I, the commission could theoretically waive the application fee if they know that you're going to be coming back. But if the plans are going to change in any dramatic fashion. From what's already been submitted, I would probably recommend that you withdraw them and reapply. And you could also, you know, ask the commission to waive the application fee since it was already paid. Yeah. And I assume that the owner is not here. So even after we decide on the other lots, Ted, you're going to need to go back to the owner. Yes. Okay. Which means that we're not going to have any sort of decision on one and two. So these two would still be dragging on, which is less than ideal. How about, how about we revisit it at the end of them after we just determined what's going to happen with the other four in this meeting. And then I can probably make some kind of judgment call about it. Okay. Fair enough. So let's get back to those. Okay. So then related to five, six, seven, eight. This is where we asked for a third party peer review for this. And so Aaron was able to secure those services. And so. Or if you want to introduce yourself and give a little background on yourself. And then if you could summarize the letter, which. Or the. Yeah, the report that you've provided, that'd be great. But I kind of modify something on that. Why don't we talk about what the contract was, because there was two parts to that contract. Yeah, Aaron, do you want to describe what the contract was? Yeah. So the board had decided. In the motion that was made to have a desktop review completed first. And that's what, that's what. Art is going to be presenting in a moment. So the other was to get a recommendation from art on whether a field. Field based review would be recommended by him. And so I'll let him touch on that. But I, what I will say is that in the contract that was written up. And the proposal that was written up by art, the contract that was written by the town and the fee that was collected from the applicant. So that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, it accounted for the field based review portion. If art goes in that direction. So that is covered already. If, if we go that route. So just as a heads up on that. Thank you. Okay. Art, the floor is yours. Good evening. Art Allen from eco tech incorporated. Can everybody hear me? Yes. Great. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. All right. So that is a final discussion with eco tech incorporated. Small environmental consulting firm and out of Worcester, Massachusetts. I've been. With eco tech since 1995. I've completed peer review projects in 37 cities and towns across Massachusetts, including reviewing a wetland delineations, In particular, this will be my fifth project for the Amherst Conservation Commission for peer review. The most recent was for Lot 33 University Ave in 2015 when Beth Wilson was the administrator. I also work with Erin when she was with Sturbridge Conservation Commission and I can continue to consult for Sturbridge on a regular basis. Well, that's a little bit of background on me. And then regarding the SWCA vernal pool assessment in my desktop review, I noted that they refer to it as a potential vernal pool, although from my review, it does not appear to be mapped. As you might know, potential vernal pools are typically referred to the ones that were remotely mapped by Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program some years ago and those are published on GIS, but this one does not appear on either the potential vernal pool or certified vernal pool map layers. But it does fall within a bordering vegetated wetland and also within a mapped rare species estimated in priority habitat that's known as pH 1319. It's not known to me what species are utilizing the mapped habitat, but it's quite possible that they may also be utilizing the vernal pool. I anticipate that Natural Heritage will consider this possibility in review when he proposed project, although Erin informed me that they've waived at least some of the locks in the subdivision from review. So that may not be subject, but just wanted to mention it. Regarding the assessment itself, I thought it was thorough and well-documented. It was completed at the proper time of the year using appropriate field techniques and the results indicated that obligate vernal pool breeding amphibians, namely spotted salamanders and wood frogs were quite successfully reproducing within the vernal pool depression at the time of the evaluation, which was April, 2019. And the results of this assessment should be sufficient to certify the vernal pool through the Natural Heritage Program. And I do recommend that certification of the pool be pursued if at all possible in theory and agreement with the applicant owner. One, probably my major comment on the assessment and the mapping, the assessment and the site plans indicate that the limits of the vernal pool were somehow identified and that they fall largely within the BVW boundaries, particularly on lots five, six, seven and eight. And that's important because basically the way they've mapped the vernal pool boundary it falls well within the 100 foot buffer zone to the BVW and basically allows them room to build on all of those four lots, notwithstanding the Amherst-Wattland bylaw requirement for the 100 foot vernal pool setback. So, and as the commission's aware, the Amherst bylaw regulations provide specific guidance on defining the vernal pool boundary at section five E2D. And I just recommend that it be confirmed that this guidance was followed with independent field confirmation as necessary. And in my experience, it's not unusual that the vernal pool boundary falls within the BVW boundary, but it's also not unusual for the vernal pool boundary to come up to or even extend outside the BVW boundary in some cases. So that would be my concern and the primary reason to have an independent review of that boundary unless the commission is comfortable with the way it was determined. Thank you. Thank you, Art. So that's great. So that's very helpful. That definitely gives us some additional insight, a little bit more, yeah, information. So hopefully we can figure out sort of next steps with this. And so, Erin, I'll start off with you. Did you have any additional pieces that you wanted to add before I open up to the commission? Well, I have a question for Art, actually about the kind of the overall plan that was associated with the application for these lots. It was my observation that it was a really sort of square shaped polygon within the BVW. As it was delineated the vernal pool. And I guess I just wanted to get your opinion on that because to me a shape like that would be very unusual for a vernal pool to be sort of in a square shape. And I guess that's kind of what alarmed me about the plans was kind of that awkwardly square shape in terms of like the waypoints or whatever they used to define the boundary. Right, yeah, I mean, it appeared to be based on kind of point to point between flags. But again, there was no, I didn't see any documentation as to how they established it. So, yeah, I really can't, having not seen it or even seen any documentation of how it was established. I really can't define further. Yeah, that's understandable. I was out there myself looking at it. I believe in early June with the applicants representative. And to me it was a very sort of natural rounded shape the basin that was within that BVW. And so it doesn't square really with what I saw in the field. And I do have photos and even video from that site walk if anybody's interested in looking at it. But I just wanted to point that out because that to me was very unusual about the vernal pool within the BVW. And Ted, also if you have any comments or questions feel free to pipe in. Well, I think Kristin is better able to go behind about how and to describe how she determined the border, the edges of the vernal pool. And Kristin, I would invite you to do that if you're... Sure, thank Ted. Can I share my screen with everybody? Is that possible? In theory, yes. Yeah, you should have the ability to do that. Okay, so this is the plan. I actually only just received this today. I'm Kristin McDonough, by the way, with SWCA. I did a vernal pool assessment out here in 2019, late April. So let me get my annotation here. So this boundary right here is the BVW. The... Let me just draw that. The vernal pool boundary follows the BVW boundary along the eastern edge. And as you can see on this plan here, that's kind of where the topography slopes further down. On the southern end, the BVW extends a little bit beyond the vernal pool boundary. And then on the western side, the BVW extends a little bit beyond the vernal pool boundary. That's because there was no standing water. And that was based on two different field assessments completed in 2017 and 2019, both completed during high water spring. So where it's BVW and not vernal pool basin, I was finding more red maple swamp, but without standing water, where there could not be breeding habitat for amphibians. So there were probably hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation, but no standing water where amphibians would be capable of breeding. And that's why the vernal pool boundary is a little bit smaller on that western side. As far as that boxy area, Erin, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about this little... Let me clear my... Are you talking about this right here at lot eight? Yes, I'm talking about that sort of zigzaggy shape between the middle of eight and the middle of seven there, where it kind of jogs out like that. Yeah, I honestly, I can't speak to any specific memory of why it goes in there other than maybe it's just the way the vertices were plotted. Yeah, that's kind of what I suspected too. Yeah, but I can tell you that the delineation of the vernal pool basin was based on standing water during period of seasonal high water. Okay, excellent. So I think that answered one of your questions, Art, about how the delineation was done. Yes, it did. Thank you. Okay, so commissioners, what are your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, overall, I think it was nice to... It's very helpful to have your report, Art. I think that just sort of helps validate what was done out there. In my mind, the biggest question is just sort of that delineation. And it's not second guessing what's out there, but just to make sure that we're comfortable with where that's at. And it sounds like this is Art Allen again. It sounds like Erin has seen it. So I know she had voiced concerns about the shape of it, but Erin, did you feel that what's on the plan fairly accurately represented the extent of ponding? No. I agree with regard to the toe of the slope that Kristen referenced. Let me just grab a pen and following that line along sort of where I guess lots, I think lots one and two were in that vicinity. Is that right, Ted? Lot, I'm sorry, I... Lots like one and two are like, right. Yeah, lots one and two. I think I see the one and two in there. Yeah, those are lots one and two, that's right. Okay, yeah. So that boundary there, I remember seeing and have a, I don't have any issue with that. I think what I take issue with, and maybe it's just my sort of knowledge of natural systems coupled with my knowledge of GIS is that this just does not look like a natural formation, I guess you could say. And what I saw in the field was a very sort of smooth rounded, you know, this smooth, natural shaped boundary following the curvature of the topography. And so it's, I, what jumped out at me, what kind of called it out to me was looking at the lots, seven and eight, the vernal pool boundary as it's shown on lots seven and eight is just like a straight line. The vernal pool boundary is just a straight line and just didn't look like anything that would have jumped out at me in the field in terms of like a really straight line defining that ponding. I did walk all the way around and took pictures, which I'm happy to share, but. Can I make one comment? Of course. If you look at the vertex of the vernal pool as it's defined that is on the lot line between lots seven and eight, and then you go to the vertex that barely seems to touch the middle of the back lot line of lot eight, even if you were to connect those together and extend the vernal pool out to there, it wouldn't change the buffer because the buffer is swung as a series of arcs from the outer edge of the vertices. Do you follow? I see what you're saying. Like even if this was, say this was an error point and it was just bad GPS because we were not a survey company. This vernal pool was not surveyed. This was GPS. So it is sub meter accurate, but let's say we were hypothetical. We had bad accuracy on that point and it should have been here or something. Is it going to change the buffer zone if this is the actual vernal pool line? No, it will not. It will not because the buffer zone is taken by taking a hundred foot radius and swinging an arc from the outer vertices. And then where those radii connect is how you define the buffer zone. And if you look at the buffer zone, you can see that the arc that goes from the number seven to the number eight is swung from that outer vertices. And then the arc that covers eight is swung from the vertices, the vertex that's behind the middle of lot eight. Those arcs would still connect out there. But Ted, if you look at just under the number eight, there's like a little dimple and that would go farther out. But I think that the buffer zone is drawn, that dark blue buffer zone line that's drawn is drawn from the BVW. That's not from the vernal pool. That's incorrect. That dark blue line is drawn as a buffer from the vernal pool. The hundred foot buffer, if you go to the, can you call up the lot eight plan and the lot seven plan, the individual plans? Yeah, I can do that. Because if you do that, then you can see that the BVW buffers are also on those plans. And there's a difference between the BVW buffer and the vernal pool buffer. Can I ask for an explanation about that? Why doesn't the buffer go directly with what the delineation of the vernal pool is? Maybe I could answer that. So basically water equals wetland, but wetland doesn't necessarily always equal water. So the wetland can have hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils, but the vernal pool basin needs to have surface water for it to be breeding habitat for amphibians. So where you have kind of just a mucky red maple swamp at high water, if there is no surface water, it won't be feeding habitat or breeding habitat for the larvae or for the breeding adults. I still don't understand where the radius is drawn from because it seems to me it's supposed to be, the distance is 100 foot from the actual pool. This is lot eight, Ted. I'm not sure if that's helpful. If you can move it up on the screen a little bit. So you can see that the 100 foot buffer swung from the vertices of the BBW is further out than the 100 foot buffer that swung from the vertex of the vernal pool. Who has defined the 100 foot PVP buffer? What do you mean who's defined it? I don't understand the question. I see the line, somebody wrote draw that line. Who defined it? And how do they do it? Mike Lou did it on CAD by swinging 100 foot arc from the vertices. From the vertex. Why the vertexes? Because that's the furthest point out. That gives you the largest buffer. Well, you can shoot, I mean, well. Because if you swing an arc from an inner buffer, from an inner vertex, it's just going to be within the buffer that you swung from the outer vertex. I'm not used to working in CAD. I'm used to working in GIS where you can just draw 100 foot offset from the line. So it's- I miss you. That's what I'm confused about. Yeah. My bad standpoint, this is making sense, though, guys. Like this is, Ted is exactly right. Like even if you were to smooth the vernal pool boundary, the 100 foot PVP buffer wouldn't change significantly. I mean, there's a small dimple there, Brett, you're right, but it might come up a little bit closer to that 380, like, you know, grading contour, but not a lot. So, and I guess my comment is just this, you know, looking at this plan, lot eight, and seeing that square shaped vernal pool in the corner of it. My analytic eye says that's not right. That's not an accurate point. That's not an accurate drawing. So if I'm automatically assuming that's not accurate, it just makes me wonder what else is inaccurate about it, I guess. But that's also a function of scale, Erin. It's a number of vertices they decided to put in. They just didn't put a lot in there or they dropped them or something. And actually they probably picked the worst ones. These two seem to kind of, even though this one's kind of squared, Erin, I'm just noticing that those do kind of follow the wetland and the vernal pool basin kind of do follow that. I mean, I wish I could give you more specifics. This was a couple of years ago. So I don't really, a year and a half ago, I don't really remember why that vertex was picked and a different vertex was picked. You know, I know that I hemmed and hawed for a long time at the Southern tip. That's where I met one of the neighbors. There was definitely no standing water on that whole tail at the Southern end, south of Lot 6. And I don't know, maybe there was a tip-up tree fall. I wish I could give you more information. I just don't remember the specifics. Well, I just remember I walked the site during, you know, vernal pool season in early June. And I remember it being sort of a round shaped basin in the middle of the vernal pool of standing water. Round, all the way around following the topography of the land, as opposed to a sort of zig-zagged polygon shape like that. And so to me, it screams error, but it's really up to the board to how you want to proceed. It's just, it does not look accurate to me or doesn't look like it follows the standing water pattern that I saw when I visually saw it in the field. Isn't this one of the problems without certification that it can change slightly from year to year? Even with certification still could, but... Well, doesn't certification establish a boundary? It does, yeah. No, so without a certification, it could change next June from what it is now. Smaller or bigger, yeah. That's right, I agree, exactly. And that's probably why people don't want to certify it. Anyway, that's another, that's an off-call comment anyway. Yeah, I think this was fixed or quote unquote fixed or changed. It's not gonna make a big difference on this map. Right. It's a hundred foot is. Right. That doesn't negate the issue of, do we want sort of a second opinion on where the border is all around? And so, I mean, I think that that's probably one of the bigger decisions that we have in front of us. And so that is what we have the contract set up to do if we want to exercise that. Obviously, so when would be so likely that would not happen until April-ish? Correct, yes. Yeah, and I think it's just kind of unfortunate, Aaron, zooming in on this one, it looks really bad. Looking at the larger one, it's not nearly as bad. So it's not great, but not nearly as bad. This one's bad. I could add one comment. In your bylaw, you give a number of different methods for establishing the boundary, although you do say that it's the largest of any of the largest boundary given by any of the methods and typically observations of the actual ponding in that high water season give you the, typically give you the largest boundary, so. And I think it's just a scale issue, but you had a number of vertices and all of that sort of stuff that was thrown in. So I doubt, is there any sort of standard for that? Like number of points that are supposed to be thrown in, like every 20 feet art or anything like that or Aaron, Kristen? I mean, normally I delineate the actual boundary and the flags are survey located. So I mean, that's how I do it. So it wouldn't be quite as chunky as it is, is what you're suggesting. Right, I mean, I'd have an adequate number of flags to actually define the boundary and it would be spot on, basically. So if there had been more points, field points noted, then it would have smoothed the curve on that side of the, of the, of the thermal pool. That's right. Yes. But it would not necessarily have made the buffer any bigger. Also, alternatively, the vernal pool boundary flags weren't surveyed. So that was collected with a trimble GPS unit. So just wanted to make sure that that's clear. The BBW boundary was surveyed, but not the vernal pool boundary. That was the GPS unit is capable of submeter accuracy, but it's not survey grade. And it doesn't necessarily get that good under a tree canopy either. And whatever the commission approves is good for three years here. So, I mean, you guys have to be confident that where you're approving is accurate. Yeah, I mean, so the easy thing to do is just go for third party. I mean, that's the easiest thing. Kristen, would you pull up the larger site plan again? Would you mind? No, thanks. I just want to... Am I too zoomed in? Can you zoom it out a tiny bit? Yeah, perfect, perfect. I mean, Persa, I don't think, I mean, assuming that it's close to being accurate, I don't think it's going to make a huge difference in our decisions here. If it's close to accurate, that's the big question for me, though. I mean, one of the things that's going to happen is that it potentially will affect seven and eight. Five and six are probably going to end up being okay, so. Particularly five, yeah. Yeah, right. Let me ask another question about this process. I mean, if we delineate that hundred foot vernal pool boundary, what are we going to say can happen inside of that boundary? Nothing. Zero. How, yeah, well, I agree, but how are we going to protect that? And what is it going to do to the property? What we often do is do things like boulder monuments so that landowners know that that's 100 foot no disturb. And I agree. And that's what I'm actually pointing at is that particularly like eight and seven, you really pretty well walk out the property. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure that Aaron's right. So I'm guessing that everything is going to get sort of pushed out and rounded out a bit. So. Yeah, even if you get rid of the the the the the the the radius lines, if you started smooth that line in, it does impact the both of those properties, seven and eight. A little bit. Yeah. Yeah, right, exactly. Yeah, it's not a lot. No, I know, but it, well, yeah, but the point I'm making has to do with who wants a house that is, you can't step out the backside because you're in a vernal pool designated area. Yeah, I think it's interesting. Our job is to, you know, protect the resource. I agree. Yeah. So that's up for, yeah, the owner and subsequent owners to figure that out, but. So it seems like there's option A, which is wait till the spring, re delineate and do, you know, a survey grade delineation. Option B is do that, but only applicable to seven and eight, which would mean moving forward with five and six now. Our option C is acknowledge that, even if it's re delineated to survey grade, it probably wouldn't make that big of a difference and move forward with all four lots now, right? I agree. Yeah, well put, John. One thing too is that you guys had asked Art for his opinion on whether or not a field review should be conducted. And I think Art, you agreed that there should be a field review to, just as a secondary to check that boundary. Well, yeah, I mean, all I can see is what's on paper. Again, I mean, I'm very, I'm very confident in the results of the assessment, especially where it's positive in terms of indicating a vernal pool. Normally when I'm asked to look at these, the assessment is negative and I'm trying to prove that it is a pool, but in this case, they've proved themselves that it is a pool. So the only outstanding question in my mind is, is the boundary and obviously it's critical. I mean, to me, it appears to be critical to six, seven and eight, but having not seen it, I know you've been out there, Aaron. So in terms of this discussion tonight, you seem to be the independent person with the most direct knowledge. And my personal opinion would be if you're not comfortable with what you saw out there, then it probably should be reviewed, but yeah, I can only say it's, I've seen ponding out to the edge of the wetland. I've seen it even extend beyond the wetland in a few cases, but so yeah, that's about all I can say. Yeah, and I did upload some pictures to commission members OneDrive box and in the Tefino folder, and there is a video in there which shows, I believe I was standing at lot two sort of spanning from, it's hard to get a directional here, but I think it was sort of like north to south, kind of spinning around and just gives you a really good idea of the natural shape of the vernal pool with standing water in it. And like I said, I think on that side facing lots one and two, I wouldn't necessarily dispute that. Just on the other side, it's very, I do agree that it's a winding line. There's parts where it kind of juts out around, hummocks and trees and roots and things, and then there's parts where it cuts back in, but it's just a, my observation was that it was sort of a winding line as opposed to just like these straight zigzags. But I don't, it doesn't look like what I saw in the field, but it's really up to the board. I mean, I think the BVW line more accurately sort of represents what I saw in terms of standing water. But I mean, so I think like, the zigzags are an artifact of how the wetland was delineated, which was by GPS. So we kind of know that that's not necessarily wrong, it's just how it was delineated. So the question is, are we okay with that delineation or do we need a survey grade delineation that might capture more of those fine contours? I don't think it's like a right or wrong thing. It's the weaknesses and strengths of the methods used to delineate here. Absolutely. My inclination would be, I hate to postpone things and carry them on, but let's do the evaluation in the spring. I'm definitely leaning that way. My only problem is I don't think it's gonna make any difference. Right. And so, yeah, that's where I'm kind of tossed. I think it will smooth out a couple of things, but overall it's not gonna, that's just my hunch. So I can. I have the same gut instinct, Brett. So do you have the same confusion too, then, Jen? I'm on the fence. Yeah, I agree. You know, like I think maybe the survey grade delineation might smooth some of this out in terms of like the impact of the overall decision on the lots. I don't think it'll have a huge impact. Yeah, well, I actually go back again with the idea that, you know, I don't like the idea that like half of seven and eight are inside the vernal pool boundary. That's not gonna change, Larry. I know that isn't, but that's still, to me, as a developable lot, that bothers me, but that's outside our range. I'm sorry. Yep. What about some other commissioners? So we're, where are you guys sitting at this point? Then I'll open it up to the public in a second. No opinion? So, okay, I'll come back. So let me open it up to the public. So if there's anybody from the public who's here who would like to ask questions or add comments, please raise your hand and then I'll make sure you're able to speak. Okay, so Becky, you're able to, you should be able to unmute yourself at this point. Hi, this is Becky and Mark, neither we're a butters to lot five. And, you know, what's the old adage? You measure twice and you cut once. We haven't done that yet. And back in the spring, we had recommended that we get an independent party to come out in the spring to assess that everything was measured accurately and done properly because we have one shot at this to make sure that the environment is protected. It was at that time that the applicant said that that wasn't necessary because we know it's a vernal pool and we can't build within the vernal pool boundary. So you all decided that that wasn't necessary at the time and now we're back taking some backward steps to where we were recommending in the first place. I think the delay isn't on our end. We would recommend that we delay until the spring so that we get the right measurements. I don't know why we're not doing this independently and making sure that the environment is well protected. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, is there anybody else who'd like to speak? Yeah, and one thing related to that, we did back in the spring, it was initially said that the BVW was gonna be the boundary and so that's why there were some different opinions at that point. So let's see. So Blake, trying. Okay, Blake, you should be able to unmute yourself at this point. Can you hear me there? Yes, we can. Great. I just had two quick questions. One was Art said there was something waived from the beginning of his presentation and I wasn't sure, I was wondering if he would repeat what aspects were waived early. And then for last meeting, I was noting that it was that the BVW and the vernal pool were the same border and you're wondering about the leak should you get legally what is the question? Did we answer that question legally in terms of that they can be separate? And that's what the switch was in the spring and I guess just for the record, I think we should have an independent person conduct the vernal pool border and thank you. Thank you. Yep, and yes, they are different borders. So they can be concurrent with each other but they are separate entities. But last week you were wondering about the leak before you weren't sure about it legally and that's why you thought you needed a third person. There was some aspect that you were wondering about legal and I guess I don't have notes on that. You remember that discussion? Yeah, I think it was whether in our bylaw we can have them be separate, BVW and vernal pool boundaries be separate boundaries or if we have to interpret the vernal pool and the BVW boundary as the same boundary and art has confirmed that they can be separate boundaries and that the BVW boundary can contain the vernal pool boundary. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Yeah. Okay, and our choose ask, or I'm sorry, Blake was asking about something that was being waived and I can't recall what that was about. I can't either, sorry. It was in the very beginning of your, I'm sorry. Do you mean, are you sure waived or do you mean that I don't remember anything about weight, anything being waived? And I might have misheard him. It was early in the presentation. He said, I just wanted that to be noted. Yeah, I'm trying to pull it off. Okay. Is there a report that the public can see from that? Yeah, I was wondering about that, Erin. I assume that this is not on the website but I assume that this is publicly available. It must be. I'm sorry, what? Arts review, arts review. I just got arts review and I haven't had a chance to upload it to our website but I certainly can do that. The vernal pool report from SWCA is on the website. Yeah, so Blake, I think we just got that. I wanna say it was either today or yesterday. So it's new, but yeah, we can definitely share that. Thank you. Yeah, and sorry. Yeah, I'm trying to look and find something about waves. Yeah, I'm reading it and I'm not seeing anything. Yeah, if you find something. I know what it was. You know what it was? It was natural habitat. Heritage, natural heritage. Natural heritage, sorry, excuse me Ted. It was natural heritage had waived another review of these lots in association with this application. Was that what it was? Do you remember that art? That's my understanding. I don't know if I use that language but that's my understanding based on what Erin had told me after I did my report that they had natural heritage had previously reviewed the subdivision, I believe, and they had declined to review the individual lots. Maybe Erin could. But that was... I can explain that if someone would want me to. The subdivision was approved and mapped and recorded and natural heritage mapped the priority habitat and estimated habitat afterwards. Therefore, the entire subdivision and all the lots in the subdivision are granted a waiver from natural heritage review so whenever we apply for an NOI for an individual lot, we have done exactly as we did here which is submit the entire application. It goes to natural heritage. They then review the history of the project and then Lauren Gloria also issues an opinion that the subdivision approval predated the mapping. Therefore, natural heritage does not subject it to review. Okay, thank you, Ted. So before I go to John, Blake, do you have anything else that you wanted to add? Well, I guess I don't want to take up too much time on that but so they didn't know, someone didn't notice at that point it was a vernal pool and then it got waived is how I'm seeing that because I got here, I forget it was a 205, it was clearly a vernal pool. Things have changed. I think that the vernal pool and the priority habitat are different. Different things. Yeah, the priority habitat is for, I think it's a turtle. I don't know if I'm supposed to say that. It's box turtles. Yeah. I got you. Thank you for explaining that. Okay, thank you, Blake. So John, you have your hand up? Yes, thank you. This is John Hoover. I am in a butter to lot eight. And yeah, I just definitely after hearing this discussion today, I have concerns about the accuracy of those boundaries. So I am also supportive as with my neighbors to getting independent assessment in the spring when the conditions are more favorable. Thank you. Yeah, there's also the possibility it can get smaller. So it's not necessarily, yeah, understood. So that's it. Yeah, this was a historic drought year. Not in the spring, I don't think, but can I just ask a question? All right, in your report, you did say that you found no problems with the methodology that Kristen used for delineating, identifying the vernal pool. Was that right? No, I said I no problem with the methodology for the species assessment. I said there was no documentation in the report of how the vernal pool boundary was identified or delineated on that question. So do any other commissioners or anybody else from the public have any sort of thoughts at this point? Yeah, given where I'm sitting, I have no problem with going for third party. So that's definitely the, yeah, I'll say the easiest, most conservative thing to do. That's, I mean, I'm usually gonna lean towards third party when it's an option. And in this case, I feel similarly that it seems like it's going to be better to get more eyes on this. So is the third party reviewing the GPS delineation? I mean, it seems like, so they come back and they say no, a survey grade delineation would be better and then we're re delineating. Wait, I have a, to your point, Jen, I have a question for Ted. When we were out, I remember doing the original site walk, there was two different sets of flagging out there. And I remember asking about the vernal pool flagging and you had said that was from a separate vernal pool assessment that had been done. The flagging from the vernal pool assessment is still in place out there. I mean, because you guys had like, you guys had like rebar for the BVW, I believe. And then there was flagging for the BVW, or for the vernal pool rather. Every one of those points that define the BVW is set with a piece of rebar and have been surveyed. The information that you see on the plan today is the information that was transferred, the GPS information that, and correct me if I'm wrong, Kristen, okay? But that's the GPS data that Kristen picked up in the field. And then transmitted those points to Berkshire Design Group and Mike Lu, the landscape architect at Berkshire Design Group, then plotted those GPS points on the original plan with the BVW delineation that was used for the, when we got the original order of conditions in 2004. So we're using the same original plan and just overlaying the new GPS data on top of it. Kristen set those, she can speak to what the flags in the field meant, because the flags in the field weren't, we didn't go pick up, I or nobody I hired, went to pick up those data points in the field. They just took the GPS data that Kristen entered while she was delineating the vernal pool and took that raw numerical data and just put it onto a plan, integrating it with the GIS and all the other reference data to make sure that it was accurately plotted. That's right, thanks Ted, yo. I keep going back to the fact that like a trimval GPS is also a very good accuracy piece of equipment. And I don't, I'm sorry, I don't have Kristen's original point at my fingertips, but depending on the settings of the GPS, it can be pretty close to survey grade accuracy. So, I mean, I didn't even save the data output table when I post-processed the data, and we do have a pretty decent antenna. I mean, as much as let's say 12 inches off, you know. I mean, they're very good. We're not, these points are not going to be like three to five feet off, especially not where that property is. So I just want to make that clear, like, you know, with the third party thing, like, yeah, again, like, I just don't know that it's going to change the delineation. If anything, you know, we're following a drought. So if we want to be conservative in protecting the wetland, we're probably pretty close here. Yeah, so again, I don't disagree with anything you're saying, Jen. I think you and I are in pretty much the same place. Yeah, again, I mean, I guess just being conservative on leaning towards, yeah, going for a third party and having it be, yeah, verified in the field. So I just want to point out, so Leroy was new to the board several months into this review. So I don't think he can participate in a vote. And Laura is in a butter. So she also can't participate in a vote. So in order for this to be approved, it would need to be the Brett, Jen, Anna, and Larry, all voting in favor of it. And it seems like the board's pretty split. I just, for what it's worth putting that out there, because I feel like we're kind of at an impasse right now. What do you think about looking at it now? I mean, just, I know that it's not vernal pool season, but what would the benefit of that be, or would there be any benefit of looking at it now, looking at where the flags are set and viewing it in the field right now in the off season? Well, there are indicators available any time of year of long-term seasonal ponding. I mean, there's the extent of water stain leaves on the ground, moss trim lines and stains on the tree trunks. All those things indicate ponding into basically into the period where the water warms up enough to cause iron reduction in depletion of the iron and the leaves and the effects on the moss growing on the trunks and things. So yeah, I can correlate the flags to those type of indicators right now. Again, I just, I wouldn't see the actual extent of ponding, which can sometimes go beyond those limits, but if the available indicators now correlate well with the topography, then I could get a level of comfort from a review now. I can't guarantee that, but I could. Yeah, and I'm not sure that the board split at this point, Erin. So I'm not quite sure where that's coming from, but. I do think that that's a really good middle ground though. Even, we could even restrict the field review to the lots in question, to make it feasible and have some sort of idea of what's going on, maybe by our next meeting, I don't know. I mean, I know these are frequent, so and everyone's busy, et cetera. Yeah, Erin, can you remind me how much this contract is for and how much each part of it was? Yeah, just take me a second to pull it up. And I just wanted to address Brett's comment. I was just, I just had in my notes that Anna was in favor of a third party review on site and Larry was in favor of a third party review on site. So that's where I came up with the split because it seemed like. Okay. But then Jen and I were on that. Dance, your question, task one was 780 and task two was $830. Thank you. And I'm happy to defer to Jen and Brett's judgment on this. I think it's just in some way. I like the idea of kind of continuing to look at this and a little bit of a deeper or a third party way, whether it's like physically in the field or another desk review or however you go about it. I don't think it does. I mean, in the field or nothing. Yeah. Art were to go out to the vernal pool and BBW boundaries. Kind of that would impact these four lots in question and confirm the locations or, you know, decide if he has a reasonable level of confidence in those locations. Is that what we would be happy with? It somewhat depends on what he finds. Cause I mean, he could go out there and say that he's uncomfortable with indicators that they're not there at all or something along those lines. I don't think he's going to know. And the reason I'm asking that is cause I'm thinking like, can we add, like if we're uncomfortable with this, is there a way to approximate it? And, you know, I'm just trying to think about how we can anticipate possible outcomes in a way to continue to push the timeline because I just am, you know, cognizant of how long this is taking. Yeah. I mean, we have to do it right. So I mean, the timeline isn't, I'm not as, personally, I'm not as concerned about the timeline. It's just, I'm always concerned about, we get additional information, but it doesn't make any difference. Right. Right. Which is kind of what I'm anticipating. So I'm thinking like, all right, if we're going to end up at the same place anyway, how can we efficiently make ourselves feel the best we possibly can and be the most informed in order to make that decision? Yeah. I trust Brett and Jen, because of their experience in looking at these things in the process. I look at it from the point of view that maybe is unfair because I want to do the right thing. But I judge, I agree with your judgment in most cases that I may be missing things. I think we all definitely say, I'm going to speak for you, Jen, that we all want to do the right thing. Yeah. I would like to put myself in that camp too, please. So Ted. I, time at this point kind of doesn't have any value to us. The winter is coming, have to quote a phrase. And I think that if the applicant is being required to spend money to have an expert go out there and evaluate to determine whether or not the previous professional did an accurate job, then why not do that under the best possible conditions, which is in the spring when the water is actually standing there and an accurate determination can be made of the limit of the vernal pool so that everybody is comfortable. We don't have to, art doesn't go out there in the fall, feels uncomfortable, finds indeterminate information. And then we're all back at square one thinking that we should have a fourth party evaluating whether or not the third party was accurate in their determination. So I would rather just do it right and you have everybody and dot every i and cross every t and be done with it. Can I just interject? Thank you for saying that Ted, that's generous of you. I also just want to say, I know that the Amherst Conservation Commission is bound by your bylaw, but to get overly consumed with the 100-foot buffer is a little bit ecologically narrow-sighted for this kind of ecology. I just want to put that out there. These animals don't follow the 100-foot buffer zone to a T, so it's a little bit more complicated than that. If there's 10 feet off in one vertex, I don't know if that's going to make or break a population of vernal pool bringing amphibians. And we're not talking about a 10-foot error with a Trimble GPS unit. We're talking about maybe six inches. I think there might have been a vertex or there'll be more vertices that are added. And so that will get smooth. It'll smooth it, but... Yeah. Okay, so I do notice that there is somebody from the public. So before I let them go to them, is there any other pieces from the commission? So if not, I'll go to the public then come back to us and hopefully we can move on. So it's either Becky or Mark. You should be able to speak. Yeah, hi. I just want to agree with the applicant, I think, to make everyone feel comfortable about this is really the goal. And to wait for the spring to get really accurate measurements is the way to go. I applaud his willingness to do that. And I see no reason why that shouldn't be the way forward. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, yeah. So I think ideally we would... I mean, each of these are separate lots, but if we could just deal with this once, I think it'd be a little easier. Granted, five is pretty far out there, but I mean, so would that be okay, Ted? I guess I have a question for the scientists. What's the earliest time in the spring that it's reasonable to go out and evaluate the vernal pool boundary? Doesn't it depend on the spring? It's weather dependent, but March 12th is kind of the earliest you can get. And the sweet spot's mid to late April? It depends. I mean, it has to be after the animals have migrated and deposited egg masses to get an optimal count. Could you get it late this June? That's to determine the count of the breeding population. I'm questioning when's the optimal time to evaluate the border of the standing water? Art, if you agree, right after snow melt? Depends on the snow pack and the amount of rain early in the spring. But yeah, I mean, I've seen very dry conditions in March and then the rain come in April and then May, so we just have to keep, I mean, as long as we have a normal snow pack and normal precipitation in April, I'd be comfortable going out there, you know, as early as, I'm sorry, as early. So normal snow pack and normal rain in March, I'd be comfortable going out there middle to late March at the earliest. But that's not very precise, Ted, but I think that's as accurate as you're gonna be able to get. Yeah, yeah, I was just curious, I thought all of us should know. Right, I agree. Yeah, so it feels like, Jen, it's kind of you and I going back and forth. And yeah, I mean, to be on the conservative side, Maz will go for the third party. It's not. Yeah, I mean, if we have Ted and our public constituents agreeing and we feel like it will protect the resource to the greatest degree, then it seems like that's the right thing to do here. I agree. Yeah, it could actually go, we don't know which direction it's gonna go. Yeah. But that's always a bit of a... That's very possible. I mean, there's very little soil moisture, very little water stored in the watersheds right now. So it totally depends on the winter. When the thaw happens. How much snow we get, when the thaw happens, what those temps look like. There's no such thing as normal. Yeah. So we do need to, we can't, you know, wait multiple years either. So I think what we have as a path forward is, what I'm hearing is consensus on moving forward with third party review in the field in earliest possible conditions. So be that mid-March. That's great. If it's later, then so be it. We already have a contract in place. And so I think we're good. Are we continuing until first meeting in March? Well, the earliest would be mid-March. So that would be sometime in April would be the earliest potential for us to. So the first conservation commission meeting in April is April 14th. The last one in March is March 24th. I guess the question is, who's going to determine when the time to do the fieldwork is, is we just gonna leave it up to the scientists to make that determination and then report? Yeah, whether in the scientists. Yep. So I'm very comfortable leaving that to the experts. So that would be art in this case. There's multiple experts here, obviously, but as our independent third party reviewer. So is that enough clear direction for you, Aaron? Is there more? I know we have to make a motion and do that sort of stuff, but. That's fine with me. I'll put it on my calendar for the start monitoring conditions in early March and I monitor precipitation across the state anyway. So I'll be in touch with Aaron and I'll schedule it up as soon as I can in the spring. And so we do have the contract already in place so we're good on that side. Great. That was good forethought. So thank you on that, Aaron. And I would like to be part of the field visits if you're gonna make them art so I can just see what you're doing. I'm curious to learn. Through the board, that's fine with me. Yep. Thank you. Okay. So we have a path moving forward. One thing we didn't discuss yet, Ted, was one and two. Should we just delay one and two until the same time? If we're gonna continue them, let's just continue all of them. Okay. So that'll make everything a little bit cleaner, I think. So we're looking for a motion on one, two, five, six, seven and eight concord way. Are there any other, I mean, just a continuation. So I guess there's no conditions or anything, so. I would just say we should pick a date and time certain. I would say maybe April 28th at 730. That would just give us the end of March, early April to see what conditions look like and get a report if possible. But I mean, if he's able to do it earlier. We could also do the 14th. That's fine. So April 14th. And does that sound like a reasonable timeframe for you, or I grew up, granted it's all weather dependent, but. Yeah, I mean, I, I can certainly make it work as long as the conditions cooperate. Okay. So April 14th and we're looking for, so I assume 730. Okay. I move that we continue the notice of intent for Tofino associates for construction of single family houses with associated driveways, utilities and landscaping within buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at lots, one, two, five, six, seven, and eight conquered way in Amherst mass to the conservation commission meeting on April 14th at 730 PM. So anything in there about exercising the second option for our contract? You want me to, so you want me to add that this continuation is in order to accommodate the field portion of a third-party review of the vernal pole delineation adjacent to previously listed lots and conquered way. Good job. Second. Okay. So vote. So Jen. Hi. Larry. Hi. Anna. Hi. Hi, for me, Leroy. Mr. Stain. And Laura. I'm Stain. Yeah. I knew they had to, but just to kind of get it formally. Okay. So Art, thank you very much. So we'll be seeing you again. You'll probably be here before we know it. So hopefully we have good weather and we can do it earlier. So Ted, thanks for sticking with us. Thank you all for persevering this. I know this has been a very torturous project and I appreciate your perseverance and your willingness to think things through. And for those people in the public, again, thank you for keeping on this. Thank you for speaking up. Yeah, we're always trying to do what's right. It's not always clear what's right, but I mean, that is definitely what we are always trying to do. So, you know, mark your calendars for April 14th. There's not gonna be another notification for you for that. You know, if that time is coming close and you're interested if we're gonna be able to do this or not, please get in touch with Aaron. And that's about the most we can sort of provide. So, okay, so thank you, Ted. Thank you, Kristen. Thank you, Art. Night now. Thank you, guys. Okay, so just switching up. Okay, so we are good there. Okay, so one down. Okay, so moving on to our 745. This is a notice of intent. And so if you are here for the 745 notice and intent, this is Conservation Works Kestrel Trust, if you can raise your hand. Oh, yep, that's right. So, oh, it says we'll be rejoining. So, okay, Pete, so you should be on there. And so let me just formally open this up. Oh, my computer just moves. Okay, there we go. This public hearing is now called to order. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to protections of wetlands as most recently amended in the town of Amherst Wetlands Protection bylaw. Again, this is a notice of intent that's being filed by Conservation Works and Kestrel Trust for the installation of 400 linear feet of two foot wide bog bridging on existing trails and farm roads on Foodbank Trail on town of Amherst Poddick Conservation Area and Catherine Cole. And so, Pete, if you want to just introduce yourselves, introduce yourself. And so obviously you have a strong background here, let's say, and provide a little background on the project, that'd be great. Sure, thanks, Brett. Everybody's still awake? Can you hear me okay? We can hear you and we're just getting going, Pete, so we've been waiting for you. Okay, well, I'll try to drag this out then. Appreciate it. So the project, if you've seen the maps, and I think Aaron can put our map up of the project, what we're doing. I'm sorry, Pete, but can you just introduce yourself? Most of us know you, but maybe not everyone here does. Yeah, I was leaning into that. My seven-person firm is called Conservation Works. And we do a lot of work all over New England, but recently, well, over the years, quite a few projects for both Amherst College and Kestrel and Trust. And actually, I'm well familiar with the bridge situation that Aaron was talking about earlier, the emergency certification. That's the situation that the bridge is actually at the very south end of the small pond back in the woods east of the railroad and a big tree fell on it. And it's leaning sharply to one side, so it's definitely in need of a quick fix. But the current plan, which Kestrel is sponsoring, and we've been working closely with Dave, Zomek on the plans, is really to complete the loop that you see in the picture. So starting over at the right side, near 116, where the Valley Light Opera Barn is, the trail goes south and then west and then into Hadley. So it's a two-town project and we're following with the town of Hadley too. We had originally anticipated that we would be asking permission to put some bog bridging on the farm road through the Northern Podic area, where Aaron has the marker, which has been subject to the beaver flooding that you've already talked about tonight. And it looks as though Eversource is going to make every effort to alleviate the flooding, so that that's not part of the plan. Now we've taken that out, which leaves us with a total of a proposed 240 feet of bog bridging in the south end of the property, or really it's on the other, it's on the Catherine Cole parcel in four different spots. And if that's enough of the map, Aaron, you could move on and I can show you what the terrain looks like. What we're really talking about is an existing trail that's been there on an old farm road for a long time. And it's well compacted. It's not really got wetland vegetation, although the nasty PGAS wetland layer shows most of that area being BBW, which is fine, we're acknowledging that. On the right of the picture, you see an example of exactly what we're proposing to build. It's inexpensive enough to be within Kestrel's budget and the plan is to put it on the trail that has already been severely compacted. So the subsequent pictures will show you what the terrain looks like now. There are a lot of wet spots along it. They're not severe, they're not deep. Oh, yeah. Okay, here we go. So this is the first site, the western most site, and you can see what's happened. It's dry here in the picture because we've got a dry here, but we walked it today and this one is still fairly dry, but in an average year, it's gonna be wet enough so that people who are walking have to divert around the wet spots and the trail keeps getting wider and there's more and more damage to the ground. So the idea is to focus people on this less than two foot wide walking surface, which is easy to put in. We put the two foot long sleepers that are four by sixes with a four inch dimension on the ground. This is pressure treated material. And then on top of that, anchored in planks, the sleepers are spaced four feet apart and are anchored in with rebar. So it's your typical bog bridge. And we think it's appropriate for this kind of setting where the ground's already well compacted. There's no wetland vegetation where the bridge is going. So, Aaron, can you want to advance to the next? Yeah, here's site number two. So as you go along and you can see people have over the years, I don't know whether this was put in by the town or well-meaning walkers, but there are logs, there are boards here and there because people have felt appropriate to put in something so that they don't get up to their ankles every year. So then if you move on, we are also looking at the 40 foot bridge that's been in there for a long time. It's on poles, 40 foot poles, and it doesn't need any work at all other than the replacement of good many of the tread planks, which I think are two feet long. These are not three feet. So we'll do that without any impact to the wetland. And then site four is a similar area of wetness. And then just beyond this site, you have the Hadley town line and from then on, it's Hadley's issue to deal with. So we'll be in front of them at their next hearing. And then I think the next picture, yeah, this is what we've taken out. There's an old farm road that goes to the back fields at Podick and we had thought some Bob bridging there would be good because the beavers have made it hard to walk across, but I hope every source is effective in taking care of that issue. So we'll keep an eye on it. And I don't think of anything else to mention. Oh yes, we did go to Natural Heritage to ask, we paid the fee and requested the species identification because it is in a bio map to a core habitat area. And they got back to us and said that it's climbing firm or Hartford firm. And we've scoured that area. I'm well familiar with that species. There's a lot of it in the south end of Lawrence swamp. And I haven't seen it yet and we'll be on the lookout for it, but I don't see any way that our work would impact that particular species here. And their identification was for both Hadley and Amherst part of the project. So if it's possible, we might be able to start construction in the fall, although I don't think Hadley's gonna move fast enough to permit what we wanna do on their side. So there's every likelihood that we'll delay until spring. So are there questions? Great, thank you, Pete. So Aaron, do you have anything to present? And then I think there was also some comments from DEP on this one, if I remember correctly. Yeah. I'm sorry, if I could just add that at one point, Janet Stone from Hadley went onto the property, but she went onto the wrong property and ended up at the North Endopodic taking pictures of the beaver flooding and on the basis of seeing that picture when she sent to Mark Stinson, he came back with some strong language, not necessarily in favor of the project, but I think because we are really looking at that South Trail and land that's already been severely disturbed, I think Mark will take a different view. It didn't seem, that wording was very strong. I was kind of surprised. So I'm sorry, Aaron. Yeah, I did clarify that with Mark, that issue and let him know that that 160 feet, we were aware that that was flooded and that we were working on getting the beavers out of there and that that section of bog bridging was gonna be removed from this proposal, which Pete did amend the plan and resend it today. From walking the site, my observation is that the compaction in the farm road, the old, the former farm road, which is now a trail, the compaction is such that really the trail is an upland path in the middle of the wetland. There was one and we had a huge rainstorm, obviously the night before and there was only one small area which had a puddle in the middle of it. Other than that, there was no indicators of hydrology on the path and it was, most of it was not vegetated. It was just a compacted dirt path. So I don't really have any issues with the placement of the bog bridging and I certainly don't think that there's anything needed in the way of replication because I don't think that the placement of this bog bridge is gonna be filling any wetland because I don't think that the path itself is wetland. The only comments I really have are just that we need the a butter notices and the certified a butters list which you may have scanned to me Pete but I don't have in hard copy form. So I just had that in my notes from today and then we need the DEP file number to make an approval and then any comments from natural heritage which since this is not estimated habitat, I don't think we need an official approval from natural heritage but just general comments. Okay, that's fine. I'll get you the extra material and we'll wait for the file number. Great. But I mean, the board can't take any action on it tonight because we don't have a DEP file number on the project. So my recommendation would be that we just wait for DEP to submit a file number to us and then at that point, the board could take action to approve or. So am I right that you'll continue till November 18? I would recommend that we continue to October 28th because I think that we could get it taken care of at that meeting. Good, that's much better. Thank you. Yep, and even before we do a continuation, might as well open up for comments at this point while it's fresh in our minds because then hopefully at the 18th then you could show up if you want Pete but depending on how things go today and what's in the DEP, you can come or not. Sure, thanks. I'll check in with Aaron before I end. So commissioners, I mean, so this seems like a fairly straightforward thing. It seems like an improvement out there. I mean, so Pete, are you gonna do anything to close down those trails that are getting wider at all? Are you gonna reseed those or put up brush piles and just kind of let nature and the hikers take their way? I think they will seed in by themselves. There's a constant rain of seeds in that area. So I'd be surprised if it didn't green up pretty quickly but if you like, we can do something about it but I think we'll be okay. More out of curiosity. So commissioners have any other questions or? Is there anybody from the public? If you do, you can just raise your hand. Okay, so it seems pretty straightforward. I assume, assuming nothing interesting comes out from any of the additional letters, we should be good to go on the 18th. And so what's the time for that one, Aaron? 740 on October 28th. Oh, 28th, I'm sorry. Okay, so looking for a motion for continuation for October 28th, that's 740. Oh God, I just had it. No, that's great. Don't move, don't move. Are you not gonna say the whole thing, Larry? No, I think so moved. When you're recording a meeting like this, it's really nice is because everything is recorded ahead of time, so you know when you say so moved. I've been in meetings like this where the secretary goes crazy because they don't know what's been said but here we know what's been said. That's just me, I'm just. And by the way, I just had a distraction. I got up and walked away because I had to bear on my deck. And this is a conservation commission. So they're good size cubs that were sitting on my deck. And I just, I was out there shunning the flashlight at them as they ran across the yard. Cool, thank you. Thank you. Okay, so Larry. Hi, Anna. Hi. Ben. Hi. Leroy. Hi. Laura. Hi. And I, for me as well. So we'll be in touch, Pete. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. So now we are back on to our request for determination. And so let me officially open this up. So if you were here for that, if you can raise your hand. So, okay. Okay. This public meeting is now called to order. This meeting is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protections of wetlands as most recently amended and the town of Amherst wetlands protection bylaw. This is a request for determination being presented by SWCA on behalf of ever source for a concurrent slash after the fact emergency filing for the installation of 1500 linear feet of duct system, including seven manholes within the roadway layout and shoulder root 116. And so, and so who do we have? And so Rebecca, if you would like to present where we're at at this point and then we can move on from there and please introduce yourself as well. Absolutely. Becky Weisman, I'm a natural resources team lead with SWCA environmental. And would it be okay if I shared my screen? That would be great. All right. All right, everyone can see. Okay, great. So this is the project that was the subject of the emergency authorization that you ratified earlier today, earlier on today's call. As noted during that, it is a duct line that is proposed that's about 3,600 linear feet that will go from the Podic substation north to Plum Tree Road in Sunderland. The work is proposed entirely within the roadway layout of route 116, either the paved roadway or the immediate adjacent roadway, maintained roadway shoulder. And just to show you kind of more detailed, you'll see here, this shows the line in this red dash line is the proposed line. And these dots with the M are the proposed manholes. Within Amherst, there will be about 1,500 linear feet of duct line in Amherst and three of the manholes are in Amherst. SWCA did delineate wetlands along the proposed routes. And you'll see in green are the delineated wetlands and the lighter green and the darker green are the DEP GIS data layer wetlands. The green dashed line is 100 foot buffer zone. This blue line here represents a flood plain, this blue with the little hatching on it. And then there is riverfront area is this blue dashed line here. So the work is gonna be, the duct line is gonna be constructed by conventional open trenching. It'll be a three foot wide trench that'll be five feet deep. Work is proposed within the 100 foot buffer zone in 200 foot riverfront area. And in addition, there's about 360 linear feet that's within bordering land subject to flooding. No permanent impacts are proposed. The majority of the work is exempt from the Wetlands Protection Act as utility work within minor, it's a minor exempt activity for work within buffer zone or riverfront area. The exception is that 360 linear feet that's within bordering land subject to flooding. But that work will not impact grades at all. That's, you know, it's a below ground pipeline. There is one manhole that's proposed within the BLSF, but again, it's gonna be constructed flush at grade. So there's gonna be no impact to compensatory flood storage or any of those impacts to performance standards of the bordering land subject to flooding. Work was originally expected to kick off in early October, which was the reason for the request for the emergency certification, as Erin had mentioned, this is due to outages that are being experienced by customers on a pretty frequent basis. So it's been deemed to be emergent work by Eversource. And so originally, like I said, work was supposed to start off in early October. Right now the plan is it's been pushed off a little bit to October, they're anticipating October 19th or 20th. They finally secured contracts with the contractor to do the work. That was kind of the delay. They also had to go out and pre-characterize soils along the route. It's not expected that all of the soils that are removed during trenching will be able to be reused as backfill within the trench. So they had to do some pre-characterization so that they can identify an appropriate facility to dispose of those soils. We are proposing obviously erosion and sedimentation controls. Those are shown on the plans. Just to show you, this is the part that goes from the POTIC substation. The yellow lines are a little bit faint probably on your computer screen, but those are the locations where we are proposing erosion controls. And this is the town line here with Sunderland. So we're proposing erosion and sedimentation controls, consisting of straw waddles as a barrier as well as catch basin inlet protection along the stretch of roadway. We'll also have a environmental compliance monitor on a bi-weekly basis who will be monitoring the construction and ensuring that erosion sedimentation controls are installed and being properly maintained. We will be doing contractor training prior to construction to make sure that the contractors are aware of their responsibilities during this time. Sorry. And we'll also be out there during the removal of soils to ensure proper, we'll have another, an LSP that'll be out there during soil removal to ensure that the soils are being disposed of properly as well. And I will open it to any questions. So thank you very much, Becky. So Erin, do you have anything that you'd like to add at this point? I have no problem with the proposed work. As long as it conforms to the plans and all of the conditions that were outlined by Becky in her presentation, as far as erosion and sediment controls, protection for inlets, regular monitoring during construction to ensure that material is not migrating. So my recommendation would be a motion for approval positive determination checking box B5 to assert jurisdiction under our local bylaw and then a negative determination checking boxes B2 and B3 for Wetland Protection Act and utilizing the conditions that I had referenced in the emergency certification. Okay, so commissioners, any comments, questions for Becky? I mean, so one point of clarification for me, Becky, can you just reiterate where the work is gonna be done? So you said some of it's gonna be either in the roadway or it's directly adjacent to the roadway. So is there any natural vegetation that's being taken out? The vegetation is all, I was actually on the site today, I can show you some pictures, let me see. But it's pretty heavily mowed along the roadway shoulder. All of the work is proposed within the roadway layout and it's only a three-foot-wide trench. So let's see if I can make sure that, hold on. So kind of this is pretty typical here of the maintenance of the roadway shoulder. But we cannot see your screen. You can't see my screen any longer? Okay, sorry. Yep, now we can. Okay, great. All right, so this is pretty typical of what's along the roadway. As you can see, it's a pretty well-maintained area. This, they have staked out there the limits of the roadway layout and the work will be entirely within the limits of the roadway layout. This is one of the wetlands. I think this is wetland B and this is facing east from wetland E, I guess. I can show you if you need kind of, wetland E is right just this way all here. So as you can see, it's a pretty well-maintained roadway shoulder. Okay, yep, so that's helpful to me. So thank you. Other commissioners, you have any comments or questions? So is there anybody from the public who has any comments or questions? You can just use the little feature to raise your hand. Okay, so not seeing any. So if I'm not hearing anything, then looking for a motion on this. And so Aaron, can you put back up your slides, please? If anybody needs a cheat sheet like I do. I'll take it. I'm recommending a motion for approval of positive determination, checking box B5 bylaw, negative determination, checking box B2 and B3 of the Wetlands Protection Act with conditions referenced in the emergency certification. Thank you, Laura. Looking for a second? Negative. Thank you, LaRoy. Okay, so a voice vote, Laura. Hi. LaRoy. Hi. Larry. Hi. Anna. Hi. Jen. Hi. And I for me as well. So thank you very much, Becky. And Aaron will be in touch with the paperwork. Thank you so much. Have a good night. Okay, so this will change. Oh, okay, so I think we are good there. Okay, so Aaron, is there a certain order that we want to hit the additional pieces that are on our list? I think we've hit all of the other business items that I wanted to cover. I think the last one that we were going to discuss tonight was 214 Pomeroy. Okay. And so I see that Sabina's here. So Sabina, I will promote you to a panelist. And I'm not sure if there's anybody else here with you for this one. Okay. So Aaron, can you just provide a quick recap on where we're at with this one? And I think we're up to a enforcement order, if I remember correctly. Yes. So after the last meeting, we had scheduled a couple of sidewalks. One was with Tom Reedy and Andy Bone and myself, Anna and Larry made it out to that sidewalk. And as part of that initial sidewalk, I had ratified the initial enforcement order that was issued in order to include estimates in the amount of resource areas that were altered. And those areas, Anna and I had walked and sort of paced off and taken sort of some measurements approximate in the field. And then I took those notes that I had taken from our field measurements and inputted them into GIS in order to come up with approximate estimations of alteration to include in the enforcement order. And enforcement orders do require us to estimate the amount of alteration. It's actually a section within the enforcement order where we have to do that because it just tells DEP basically how much area was altered as part of the order. So that's what that contained. And then the second part of that was just my recommendations as staff for sort of how to proceed forward with as far as the restoration. And my recommendation was to require a notice of intent be filed for the restoration. And the reason for that is sort of twofold. One is because we can condition to have access to the site in order to monitor it while work is going on just to make sure that there's nothing going on on site that is not part of the order of conditions. And also because we can make sure that it's recorded on the lot and require after the fact that there be a certificate of compliance to ensure that all of the work is completed to the commission satisfaction. So that is basically the recommendations that I made. And I also had recommended that we require an actual wetlands scientist to put the replication plan to get or the restoration plan together because I think there was so much square footage of wetlands that were altered as part of this project that having somebody who understands the science of wetlands and plants and the communities out there would be really important. Just to touch on a couple of things, I was contacted by, Andy Bone had let me know that he may or may not be participating in the future on this, but there was a wetland scientist who submitted a resume formerly. She worked with SWCA and she's a professional wetland scientist. So she had reached out to me and also Sabina had provided her resume to us as well. So we can take a look at that. I also was able to locate site visit photos from mid-December and early January, which I uploaded to our OneDrive folder for members to view. And I also, Sabina in the last few days had provided a correspondence to us with kind of what her plan was moving forward. And one of the things that kind of jumped out at me with some language about farming activities on the property. And so I just wanted to, I did a little research myself on when the site was last farmed or haired and I was able to find some aerial imagery that basically shows that the property was last mowed in 2005. So that was about 15 years ago. Other aerial imagery that I was able to find shows that the property was growing in with vegetation since then, since 2005. So just wanted to make sure that it was clear that there was no agricultural activities that were going on there and the land was fallow for over five years. And that was basically, that was all I have. I have the document from Sabina, which I had forwarded to you guys already, but it's kind of a quick update. Okay, thank you. And also just to add that and a thank you to Sabina and Meredith. And so they allowed access and so they accompanied myself and Leroy. I think it was Saturday. So we were able to get out there as well and see the property. So that was very helpful. Okay, so Sabina, do you have anything that you would like to add before we start to deliberate? I guess what I'd like to accomplish today is the review of Meredith's resume because in the letter from Erin, it's specified that the board should okay the wetland scientists that we use to restore the weapons. I think that's about all I have in my mind to be able to ask you all to do tonight. Okay, great. And then Erin, what happens between the ratification enforcement order and the NOI is no work allowed until the NOI is fully in place? I just want to make sure that that's clear. Yeah, so the cease and desist remains in place until there's an approved order of conditions on the site for the restoration. So, okay, so until the NOI is in place and approved then. I mean, I'm not referring to like planning work, like if there was work to go out and set flags or investigation as far as the best approach to restoration work, that can take place. It's more like any type of construction, earthwork, cutting, things like that couldn't happen without a permit. Okay, thank you. Okay, yeah, so I think that this all sounds like a good path forward. So basically we would be, yeah, making sure everything is ratified appropriately. And then it'll be up to the applicant, to the landowner and her wetland specialist to move forward. Yeah, we will definitely, we can definitely talk about Meredith. I've seen her background and seems very legitimate to me, but we'll see what other people have to say. So, do any other commissioners have thoughts on where we're at, questions and moving forward? No, I just want to thank the other commissioners from going, for going out and doing that site visit. I was not able to and disappointed. So thanks everyone for doing that. Yeah, I second that. Thanks guys. Well, luckily when LaRoy and I went out there, Sabina made it a beautiful day for us. So it was a pleasure. And it sounds like Aaron and Anna, you guys had some serious little mapping. So thank you. That's a pacing involved. Yes. Nice work. I just got to look at it because my knee doesn't let me do this. By the way, I have an appointment to see a surgeon about my knee. Good for you. Okay. So I'm not really hearing any problems with this as a plan for moving forward or any sort of questions. So I think that most of that will come when, you know, when the NOI is in front of us. Aaron, can you, do you have any opinions on Meredith as a applicable person? I mean, she has been an agent for at least a couple of towns. She is, I don't know if certified is the right word but she's a professional wetland scientist and she seems to have all the right credentials from what I can tell. Yeah. I would have no problem with her working on the restoration. She seems like a fully qualified and competent professional. Yeah. And she's worked with Emily. I can't remember her last name but somebody who's done some other work with us. And yeah, just being out in the field with Meredith, it seems, yeah, everything seemed right. So, okay. So not hearing anything else? Aaron, can you help us paperwork wise? So what do we need to do at this point? So I would need a motion to ratify the enforcement order that was issued. Is there specific language like which? So it's the revised enforcement order that was issued on 9, 16, 20. That's the only thing that I would like to postpone because in that enforcement order, there are square footages that I'd like to have measured by the surveyor. So I would just counter that in enforcement orders, typically it's not, you know, the numbers aren't typically provided by the person who committed or the owner of the property where the violation took place that are being provided in there. What I would suggest is that if in the notice of intent application, more exact measurements are taken that those be presented at that time, these are merely estimates that were taken by us in the field to get a general sense of the amount of alteration that was done. And that's very standard for enforcement orders. And it's required by DEP that we include those in enforcement orders. Oh, I wish Meredith were here because she told me that it's typically the owner who provides the square footage. And I do want that to be accurate. Yeah, these are just estimates at this point. I mean, it's not going to really impact everything, anything going forward, Sabina. Because yeah, you'll come up with better estimates or Meredith will for moving forward. This is just to kind of push all the paperwork forward as all. All right, if we have a verbal understanding that this is not the final square footage, I have no problem with that. Even more, yeah, we have it in writing. And yeah, this is definitely not the, these are just approximations is all they are. So a hundred percent. Okay, so if I'm not hearing anything else then looking for a motion for ratification. So moved. Looking for a second. Again, sorry, second. Thank you. Okay, so voice vote, Leroy. Hi. Anna. Larry. Hi. Jen. Hi. Laura. Hi. And I for me as well. Okay, so we're all set with the enforcement order at this point, Sabina. I think it's very clear that we're all comfortable with Meredith. So that is great. She's done NOIs plenty, but if you or her have any questions at all about it, please get in touch with Erin and she can help walk you through and as soon as that gets submitted then we'll be able to get you on a future agenda. Yeah. Do you have any questions at the end here? Okay. Good. I think we are good. So thank you, Sabina. Thank you all. Good night. Good night. Okay, so Erin, is there more are we looking for our favorite motion? Your favorite motion. Hey, I would like to make an addendum on my visitors. There are four bears here. Three cubs that stand about four feet tall and a mother that is really big. Wow. Wow, that's cool. Amazing. They've been in my deck. I was, you know, they're four feet away from me. Fortunately, they haven't come back. My neighbor just had a screen ripped out by the mother probably. Can you send us a picture, Larry, please? It's a little confusing, Larry, because to us it looks like you're in Seinfeld's apartment, so any of those four bears are doing in yours own. I just, okay, I will send it to you because I just, I actually have a video camera out front and I've got videos of these guys right now. So I just sent it to my family. So after this is over, I'll forward it to you people. Right outside downtown Amherst, and we have the same, well, we have triplets coming through too. I don't know if they're the same ones, but yeah. I didn't think we had triplets down. I thought we had, they'd been here at my house before. I thought there was only two cubs. But you know, now I saw, one of them was up in a tree. So there's three cubs here today. Anyway, great fun. It's good old Amherst. And by the way, my neighbor also has claims that she's seen a mountain lion cougar near here. And I believe that because they're down here. I've seen them myself in Amherst. A real mountain lion type animal that runs around, they're here. That's exciting. So, okay. So looking for a motion for adjournment. I move adjourned. Second. Okay, Anna. Hi. LaRoy. Hi. Larry. Hi. Jen. Hi. Laura. Hi. And I for me as well. So we are officially closed. So thank you everyone. Enjoy, keep safe. Bye everyone. Thanks everybody. Bye bye. Bye guys. Thank you, Erin. Thank you.