 I said the meeting was at 11, 11 p.m. I don't know what time zone that was Larry. I know that could be the issue. You know, I, I sent out, I sent out a message to, to reach or to join my particular thing and it was out through outlook. And what it did was it looked at the computer it was sending to and gave them the local time. Which means it was not right in some cases. Okay, so why don't we get going so welcome everyone today is October 28 2020 this is the Amherst Conservation Commission meeting so we're just starting a few minutes late because of technical difficulties but I'm sure we will make up for that and so with that. No comments for me so Dave do you have something you'd like to add. Yeah just a couple of quick updates. Let's see it's really it's trees trees trees down trees it's all about out in the field down trees right now from all these micro microbursts these these fast moving storms Brad and Tyler have been quite consumed I'm going to guess we probably have 100 trees over trails right now. I've been really just teaming up on these kind of tiger teams and, and they send me a bunch of pictures I'll try to send some to Erin and she can send them send them out to you all. But they've been working in South Amherst recently. They've been trying to get caught up and then they were up on near Puffer spawned as well this week. They're also doing quite a bit of brush hogging. This is that time of year where we try to, you know, get as much brush hogging done as we can. There's areas where we know we in particular that we have box turtles so we wait until typically after the first frost, November 1 first frost, when box turtles have already headed to where they're going to spend the winter, which is typically in in wetlands. They're out of the fields. So we'll be hitting places like. Oh boy, I shouldn't have shouldn't have gone down that track because now I'm going to play. There's a couple of places in South Amherst off of Southeast Street where we have box turtles small box turtle populations and then we help out shoots bury out at Atkins flats we typically wait until late there. We try to avoid wood turtle habitat as best we can until late in the season so it's perfect I mean we're going to get a little storm a little cold temperature snap right down into the teens I think this weekend. So that should send a lot of the turtles toward the wetter areas that we don't know. So trees down trees brush hogging. I think there's a report today that Brad did team up with the coals company and they got in the story walk posts. I think there are eight. I think there are 18 of them up between Mill River Recreation Area and Buffers pond. I believe that calls will be working to put out the, you know, you all approved that installation so calls will be putting out the whatever holds the stories themselves on those posts ASAP. We are still finding it a little bit challenging out there in Mill River along the Mill River with this, this gentleman who is making the, what do you call them Karen Karen's, you know the rock sculptures. We continue to get a lot of concerning emails about him and his work both in the streams and and on land. I was up there, I don't know a week or two ago and it is reaching that point I think where we need to try to try to get a better handle on this. He's cutting down a lot of a lot of live material in the forest and so I've asked Brad to see if he can ask around out there and see if we can have a conversation with this gentleman. I know it's also come to a head. Some people have approached him directly, and others are simply taking down the rock sculptures. So the rock Karen so I want to make sure there's no, you know, we don't have some sort of altercation up there as well so we'll keep you posted on that. Is this like, is this the outflow of Puffer spawned that area. Yeah, right below right below the Puffer spawn dam for a good couple hundred yards this gentleman. I think he lives in the area and I don't know his circumstances but I, I think he just has a lot of time on his hands so he, he's made one point I think somebody said they were over 200 in the stream along the stream taking rocks out of the stream. And a large nest a large bird nest I might have told you this at the last meeting but it's getting to that point. So we may ask, you know, we may ask other local sources if we can see if we can lean on them a little bit because this is not something I've encountered before. Let's see the only other update I had the CPA committee is now meeting. I actually did not submit anything this round of CPAC for CPAC funding for typically we would, you know, we in most years we have a land acquisition project, and then we often ask for money for land acquisition proposals. But again, with just trying to complete three land acquisition projects so we, we bought the Zala property in North Amherst. We bought the Keith Haskins property off of Market Hill Road, and Hickory Ridge is pending. And I really felt as though given workloads given the COVID environment. Really, there was nothing ready for prime time in terms of land acquisition. And to be honest, we have a lot of unspent trail money right now. And I want to make sure we spend some of that in 2020 and 2021 before we go back to the CPAC, because CPAC is getting there. They're more organized than they ever were before. So they're very aware of unspent balances, and we need to spend down on some of that money to improve bridges and trails and whatnot. So, and parking lots. So parking areas at Trailhead so we're going to do that. And then we'll go back to them in 21 for some additional funds. I will say I think it's the first time in 15 years that I haven't submitted anything so it took every ounce of my control not to put in a request and Fletcher knows having sat on that committee for a long time. They're very, they're very attuned to funds that are still out there pending projects being completed. So those are my quick updates. Do you know roughly how much of the excess trail money there is I mean we're talking $10,000 $100,000. Oh no it's probably in the 20 to $25,000 range. You know it goes fairly quickly I mean you start doing a you know crushed gravel crushed stone parking lot with with kiosk and the split rail fence I mean very quickly you're up in the $10 to $12,000 range. We also, we did. Along those lines we did we were able to order a number of new kiosks. Some of them have arrived and some of them are in process. But we used some of them were ordered with cares act money we found out that that was a legitimate expense under cares act so we did order some additional chaos that we can replace old chaos or try to get a consistent presentation at all of our trail heads with new chaos. I think I noticed that my guy keep on getting questions down here in Orchard Valley about Hickory Ridge and I know there's an auction yesterday at the restaurant equipment so things must be moving along there pretty good. Yeah, Hickory Ridge is is in fact I have a conference call on it or a zoom call tomorrow on Hickory. You know I've been saying this for a while so I don't really want you know I sound a little like a broken record but this is a this is one of the more complicated land acquisition. I've ever worked on particularly when you have the solar solar involved. So yeah, the thing is on track. Tomorrow's call is specifically to update the town on where the owner is with solar. We're ready. We don't need any more votes as far as I know, we do not need any more votes to acquire Hickory Ridge. You voted the seat back voted the town council voted. So the funding is available. So we really need the owner and his legal team to move this forward as as quickly as they can. Again, I'd say the next two two and a half months is is a likely scenario Aaron and I are working with them and that'll be part of the call tomorrow. We're working with them to get a little more information on what their plans are with regard to 21 E the 21 E site which is, you know, they have a, I would call it a modest contamination issue related to underground storage tanks and you know, just routine maintenance of vehicles and, you know, oil on the ground, things of that sort. So that's back down that's back down behind where their storage area was. Yeah, that's where they stored their their equipment, any of them or pretty standard it's, you know, particularly when you have underground storage tanks it's like any franchise like most gas stations in this country. Yeah, our 21 East sites, because you can never contain all of it. So that a little bit. So those are my quick updates. Great, thank you Dave. Any questions for Dave. Okay, so Aaron the floor is yours and we're just about at 730 so I didn't. So should we just start our 730 at this point Aaron or is there something you want to go. I could actually do one really quick item I don't think it's anything that the board's going to take issue with we've got a request land use application and I had spoken with Dave in advance about it. I'm going to play an individual who wants to do play acoustic music one to four musicians at Amethyst Brook in the field. I think once a week. I know that musicians already do this at Groff Park once a week without permission so I don't know, you know, we figured we'd run it by you guys but it just seemed like such a benign request to have people playing music in the field. Yeah, Joan approached me about it first and so I asked her to just submit a form I didn't think there's any issues with it but just so we're kind of all aware. Yeah I thought just for consistency to have you all review it and take a vote and, and then we could just be consistent across the board because we do get. They want to hold a small little concert they want to hold a wedding, you know, these these things come up all the time. Yeah anybody have any questions I mean so they're not doing it for money they're just going to be sitting out there for the dog walkers for whoever. Did you say when. Okay, no she doesn't know it's going to be kind of ad hoc. Okay. You might want to go. That's why I was asking. It's also getting cold out. If you hear Brett will you email me. Sure, we'll do. Yep I'll ask Joe next time I see her. Thanks. So we'll just bring dogs without leashes. And Fletcher. What's that. Only before 10. Yeah. I'm going to mute myself now. So if there is no other questions on it. So we'd be looking for a motion to approve the application. I move we approve the application for music in the field that amethyst broke. I can. Okay so voice vote Leroy. Hi. Jen. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Larry. Laura. Hi. You're welcome. I'm going to move on to the ad. I know you can't hear me as well. So we are good. And yeah, I look forward to seeing it as well. Reads. Okay. Should we move on to our seven 30 at this point? Yeah, that sounds good. Okay. So if you are from the public and you are here for our seven 30 agenda item, which is the backyard ad use for Kelly light at 34 Baker street. So, oh, you even put backyard ADUs in your name. Wow, you're good. Okay, so let me formally open this. 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 the protection of wetlands as most recently amended in the town of Amherst Wetlands Protection bylaw. This is a notice of intent for backyard ADUs for Kelly Lake pros 790 square feet to tax supplemental apartment in a 600 square foot barn inspired studio and parking at 34 Baker Street, map 13D parcel 46. And so Chris, welcome. If you wanna give a brief background on your project and then we'll go over to Aaron for additional details. Let's see if we can get Chris unmuted. I'm hitting the unmute button, Aaron, but it's not unmuting. Can you do it from your side? Yeah, I just clicked it. I think Chris might have to do it. Maybe we're like going back and forth. Yeah, Chris, can you try to unmute yourself? Yeah, there should be a little microphone button somewhere that you hit. You got it. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Sorry about that. I was fiddling with the mute button. So I'm happy to give a quick overview. So we're proposing to build a detached supplemental apartment for Kelly's mother who's moving back up to Amherst from New Jersey just to be closer and to get a little bit of help as she ages. And then we are also building Kelly a barn inspired studio for her to write her children's books from. We have invited Ward Smith, a local wetland scientist to the property to do a delineation and give us some feedback on whether or not there were any key concerns with runoff or anything with a wetlands. One of the things that we are planning to do is engage a civil engineer who's going to review the soils at time of excavation and help us understand what we need to do to control stormwater runoff. We didn't wanna put a plan together right up front because in conversations with the engineers, it seemed to make more sense for them to really look at what the absorption ability was of the soil so we could do exactly what's right. We're hoping we have as, we're going in front of the zoning board of appeals in November and if all goes well, we're open to break around on this project in December or early spring. And I'm happy to answer some questions but I think that's a general overview of what we're looking to do. Is there already a property on that block? Yes, this is a single family property. Kelly lives up in the main house. It's not, the main house is not showing on there. It is, but it's very late. Yeah, it's the proposed, it's the lighter gray showing the current conditions. It's up at the, it's up within the bottom of the plan towards the bike path. It's way at the bottom or depending on which way you're looking, okay. Yep, and there's an existing driveway that's shown on there but that is also extremely light, but it is on there. That's what, that's the next question I had is where is the driveway? I was wondering how it relates to the 50 foot wetland side. So that's the next question I had. So way off Baker street. Yes, yep, the house is well off Baker street. The driveway goes roughly in line with the proposed strip of waddles to protect the wetlands during construction. Right. Okay, so why don't we turn it over to Aaron first and then we'll go for open questions if that's all right. So Aaron. Yeah, so just before I jump into kind of my comments and the site visit photos, Chris had mentioned something and I just wanna make sure that this is really clear during the public hearing and then also in the conditions cause this is kind of a new piece of information for me. As far as stormwater, Chris, any change and I know you're talking about doing like a field assessment during construction but you can't just make field changes and incorporate stormwater during construction. Any change that you make to the plan that you've submitted to the conservation commission you'll need to come back to us and notify and get approval for. So if you're planning on putting in say a rain garden or a swale or something to that effect, just to let you know, if it's in conservation commission jurisdiction you will have to come back before us to get approval for it. If you're outside of the 100 foot buffer then I think it's less of an issue. Okay, so we were the civil engineer and the stormwater mitigation came up as we were just talking with Maureen Pollock, the staff planner for the ZBA. And we've been digging into this and it seems that there is no requirement either in the Amherst bylaws or at the state level for us to do any kind of stormwater mitigation. So we were looking to do it anyway but do it after we've really taken a look at the things that were recommended by the engineer like what are the soils? How much is going to be needed to make sure that we don't increase water flow into the wetlands? Yeah, I mean, stormwater treatment and you know, infiltration, encouraging infiltration is very much encouraged. So I don't think it would be a major issue to get it reviewed and approved. I'm just saying you'll have to have it reviewed and approved because what's gonna happen is the order of conditions will be recorded and then you're gonna have to come back for a request for certificate of compliance and if there's something on the plan or something on the site that wasn't approved in the original plan, then it's gonna get flagged at that point and that's not what you want. Definitely bring it to our attention before. So just as an FYI on that. Okay, so I guess my follow-up question would be as we're not, as this plan as written doesn't have a proposed stormwater mitigation, does it make sense for us to move forward in that light or is the, would the commissioner want us to, want to issue a approval contingent on providing that at a later date? Well, I think either avenue would be fine just so long as one way or another, the commission is made aware of what you're doing. So for, and also, because I know that you have a hearing with the ZBA on the 12th of November, if they have any plan changes that they require of you, you'll have to make those changes to the plan and then notify the commission. So there's one of two ways to go. You could do some investigation, wait until the hearing on the 12th and we could continue your public hearing until November 18th, at which time you could incorporate any additional changes that you wanna make to your final plan and just get it approved all in one shot so that you're ready to go. Or you could proceed with hopefully getting an approval this evening and then coming back before the board if you make a minor change to your plan. So it could go either direction and maybe what we should do is go through the rest of the comments, look at the site photos and then we can kind of evaluate that after we've done some other kind of procedural stuff like public comments and whatnot. Okay, that works for me. I'm open to which direction we go. I just wanna do take the right path and make sure that we're doing what's required. Cause I know the ZBA will look at what's decided tonight and that should have some impact on what they want to recommend us. The environmental stuff is certainly in your guys purview. So two things before I turn it back over to you, Erin. So first off, if they decide to come, we proceed tonight and approve and then they come back with modifications. I just wanna make it clear to Chris that, you know, that's not a new application and just a modification. So it's a lot easier. There's no additional paperwork. And Erin, I just wanna double check that there's no additional fees or anything like that. Unless it was like, so we have, we can improve minor administrative changes to the plan. It's only if you came back with like a major plan change that we would have to reevaluate that. But, you know, that's few and far between. Okay. So I just wanna make that clear. And then the other piece was, and this is my fault, Chris, if you could just introduce yourself, maybe you said it in the beginning, but I missed your introduction, who you are and how you're associated with the project. Yeah, absolutely. I didn't introduce myself. So my name is Chris Lee. I'm the head of a company called Backyard ADUs. And we started helping homeowners build these small detached homes in their backyards, primarily for housing for family, just like this scenario. And I've been overseeing the design and development of the projects and identifying other experts that come in as needed, like Ward Smith and Terry Reynolds, the engineer who may be consulting on this. Okay, excellent. Thank you. That's helpful for our background. So Erin, the ball's in your court. Okay. So DEP did issue a file number on this project and there was no comments from DEP on it. So just as an FYI, it was just a plain old file number issuance, so that pretty well indicates there's no standout concerns from them. As far as the plan, and I'll just kind of go through sort of my recommendations from visiting the site and then I'll show you the site photos, but I would definitely recommend that we include the standard boilerplate state and local special conditions for residential projects as part of this, just sort of standard protection that we would require for any residential building project. One of the things that I had pointed out in the field was so the low spot, so the driveway is kind of the high spot on this lot, and it slopes down towards the wetlands on the south side of the driveway and then down towards the north, it slopes down as well. And so one of the things I had commented on because of the proximity to the property boundary was that the homeowner or representative may wanna incorporate an erosion control along the property line, although it's outside of our jurisdiction, it's flowing down and I just don't wanna see anything migrating off the site, so that was more of a recommendation. A stone construction entrance, and again, it's kind of dependent on weather conditions, but this last winter and spring, we had this freeze-thaw cycle that was absolutely horrendous for job sites and resulted in a lot of heavy equipment tracking a lot of material onto roadways, which then got into catch basins and it's just to make sure that any equipment coming off of this site is clean, has clean tires or tracks on it, I would recommend. And then also because the driveway turnaround is actually within 50 feet, so because this was a preexisting driveway that was in place, it's closer than 50 feet, which is what our by-law requires, so I would just recommend that whatever material, that little turnaround for the driveway is used be a partially pervious material that can handle some absorption as opposed to pavement. These are site visit photos, so if you're standing in the driveway looking north is what the view is from the top left, and then if you sort of turn northeast is the view to the bottom left, and then if you turn around and face west, you see the driveway here and then the wetland boundary there, and then if you face south, the bottom left, you can see that there's a wetland and then there's a home on the other side of the wetland. But I mean, it looked like relatively straightforward residential construction project. I didn't have any major standout concerns based on the site visit or review of the plans. Thank you very much, Erin. So commissioners, any thoughts, questions? Brad, is this a type of scenario where a butters had to be notified of this sort of construction activity? It is, okay. Yep, a butters within 300 feet of the property line were notified and they're, so any application that comes before the board, NOI, RDA, and RAD, they're all required to do that, and they're required to notify certified mail or certificate of mailing, and Chris did provide to me the proof of a butter notification. I think my sentiment is, I sort of deferred it to Brad and others as to whether or not it's better to just, to wait to approve it until we see the plans for runoff, but I'll wait to hear what others say. Isn't that the wetlands over there, isn't that the stream area that it was down to our, to the plan we're dealing with on University Drive, like one south? So Larry, I don't doubt, it wasn't actually a stream back there, it was just a BVW, but there- Isn't that the same water line or whatever you want to call it that goes down to one University Drive south? So I wouldn't doubt if they were hydrologically connected somehow, but that I don't believe there was an intermittent stream in that wetland, the intermittent stream you're referring to, I believe flows along the bike path, which is a little further west, I believe. But it is very close to that one University though. It is, yep. Just about about it. Yeah, I went, I didn't know where Baker Street was, so I went to the town maps and I looked it up and found out where it was and it looked to me like it was just, that's the upstream of where one University south is. Yeah. Yeah, it's a little, it's a little south, but yeah, it's in the same vicinity. I drive by there all the time, so I notice that, you know, what's going on there. I know where that, I've never looked at that house, but I know what the things are in front of us and so forth though. So Erin, I wasn't, obviously I haven't been there, but when you're there, so now we're gonna add two more structures to the property. Are you concerned about runoff from those structures? It looks like they're gonna be on the other side of the driveway, so it's like structures driveway and you said the driveway is the high spot. The driveway is the high spot on the property, yep. So basically everything off the house is gonna go to the butter. Yep, it's gonna move toward, more toward that north side of the property as opposed to towards the wetland. It's also, I'm not sure the exact acreage of the lot, but just the configuration of the lot, it seems like a relatively large lot. I'm not sure, Chris, if you know off the top of your head, the acreage of the lot. 0.9 acres and the property line is roughly, there's a couple of, I think they're birch trees that kind of show the division between the property line goes in the middle of the field roughly when you're there. Gotcha, so I mean, it was, it's, I mean, like a standard lot might be a half acre and this is an acre. So it's got a small single family on there now and it would have a small barn and a small secondary structure. So I mean, it didn't, it didn't strike me that they were gonna be covering the site in impervious. It's pretty sizable, pretty sizable lot. But they are adding some modicum of impervious, hopefully semi-pervious within the 50 foot. That little turn around, yeah. And that will be gravel that's not gonna be paved, that's gonna match the driveway. Okay, but in general, gravel doesn't, isn't all that much less pervious, impervious? I don't think through what the right word is. It doesn't drain, it drains about as poorly as asphalt. I mean gravel- It is as impervious as asphalt. Thank you, it's getting too late. I didn't have dinner yet, so. Which is. Okay, yep. So I mean, so what would it even be preferred instead of gravel in my opinion would be semi-pervious pavers or something along those lines? Cause I think that those have a larger, Jen, correct me if I'm our factor. No, that's for, there's some factor about how much. Yeah. Through it. I forget that. Our factor is insulation. Yeah, no, and you factor as windows. We'll call it a deep vector for driving. So Chris, do you have any feelings on that or do any other board members have other suggestions or gravel? It's not awful. It's not a huge area. I didn't know that fact about gravel. If we needed to put it on a bed of sand or I mean, I'm just talking, I don't really know how you would make it more pervious but semi-pervious pavers would be acceptable too for that space. I think those have, those work well for little car, car turnarounds in parking places. Yeah, I think the issue is that gravel is compacted to the point where it's impervious whereas semi-pervious or pervious pavers can resist the compaction that would make them impervious. Okay. All right. Yeah, okay, but it sounds like Chris, you're amenable to that. So thank you. So if we can get that change, but yeah, we can just do that through order of conditions. Yeah, so I'm not hearing any issues and we'll open up to the public in a minute. The big one kind of like Laura was saying was, do we want to do this as sort of one thing tonight? That's the direction I'm leaning because maybe they don't have any changes afterwards and so then they'd still have to come. And if they come with us with changes, it's going to be, yeah, they'll probably likely be pretty small and I think we should just be able to do it very quickly. I don't think it makes a big difference but does anybody else have feelings one way or the other? Okay, so if there's anybody here from the public who has some comments on this project, if you want to raise your virtual hand. Okay, so I'm not hearing anything and I'm not hearing anything else from the commissioner. So I guess at this point we're looking for a motion and so Erin, if you could put back up the conditions and then the additional addition, the additional condition would be changing from gravel to impervious, no, to pervious. For the small extension of the driveway. Thank you. And what about, so negative, can you remind us again, Erin, about negative this and box that? Sorry, my son just came down to say good night to me. That's more important. Yeah, so it's just to issue an order of conditions with special conditions under the state and local boiler plate. And then if you want to add any of those additional recommended conditions that were discussed. Maybe I want to take a stab at it. How about so moved? All right, I'll try. Okay, I moved to approve this project with the conditions that the boiler plate, state and local special conditions for residential projects are implemented, including additional erosion controls on both the North side, which is recommended but not required. Also recommend a stone construction entrance to keep the excavated material off the roadway. We also recommend that the additional driveway turnaround be partially pervious and move to a more pervious you know, paving solution that's not gravel. Any changes to be, any changes outside of this to be approved by the board? Thank you, Laura. That was my best, that was my best. That was great, good job. Second. Okay, so looking for a voice vote. So Jen. Hi. Laura. Hi. Larry. Hi. LaRoy. Hi. Letcher. Hi. And I for me as well. So thank you, Chris. Aaron will be in touch with paperwork and just to triple state it. Yeah, any changes that happen, please get in touch with Aaron and then we'll move it through the system. Okay, all right, thank you very much. Okay, so what's the timing? Our next one is 735, so we are good there. So we formally open this one before Aaron. So this is a continuation. And do we need to formally open? Nope, this is formally opening tonight. Okay. Okay, so let me go through the rigmarole there. 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 the protection of wetlands as most recently amended in the town of Amherst Wetlands Protection bylaw. This is a notice of intent from BSC Group for Eversource proposed a permanent access road at Podix substation. And this is parcel 2C or map 2C parcel one. If you are here as a part of that, if you can raise your virtual hand and then we can make you a panelist. And only people who are a part of the application should be a panelist. So if you're here from the general public, which is great, we will definitely allow you ample time to ask questions. Good evening. Melissa Kaplan's here from the BSC Group. I also see Jonathan Roberge from Eversource. He's the senior environmental scientist and Dan, the chief from GZ is also here to talk about if he needs to talk about the mitigation at all for the other project that our mitigation is providing compensation for. Excellent. And so if you just introduce yourself real quick, thinking maybe you just did, then provide some background for the project. That'd be great. Sure. Melissa Kaplan BSC Group, representing Eversource Energy. The project involves the construction of a 139 linear feet permanent gravel utility road outside the back corner of the Potex substation where we recently permitted the installation of a new utility pole, but this access road is needed to help provide safe and stable access to the back corner of the substation to the electrical infrastructure that's back there, as well as to the recently installed pole. The 139 linear feet of road will result in 1,775 square feet of BVW impact as well as 256 square feet of buffer zone. Mitigation for the BVW impacts are being provided across the street at the Podicol Sanctuary in the agricultural field. We will be creating wetlands as well as a 5,077 square feet vernal pool, we'll call it, amphibian pool that we are attempting to provide for spade foot toads. It also includes, I think, 605 square feet of wetland impacts for this portion of the project. In addition, we're also providing an additional 1,400 square feet of wetland creation for the Montague to Fairmont Reliability Project that was agreed upon under their order of conditions and as well as ours. We did a site visit there today with Brett and Fletcher, and I think we got a good idea of what's going on out there. There's a beaver, it's an interesting beaver dam. It's like a mud dam. They're not really using sticks. So they're kind of creating this channel here that you can kind of see here. And then back in underneath the right away and in the woods, they have kind of made a big mud dam from these, I'm not quite sure what they're doing, slipping and sliding in the mud and then moving the mud back there and it's impounding the area. So we're hoping that the removal of this beaver dam and impoundment will help reduce the flooding in this area and create a more natural wetland and for us to have a successful spadefoot toad pool. We can talk a little bit more about the spadefoot toad pool. We did field work and determined that are probably the top of the ground water is about 18 inches down. So we're gonna dig down to that 18 inches and then we're gonna have it built back up on the edges to allow for nine to 12 inches of, hopefully of ground water filling of that pool in April and May during snow melt and the higher water table times of the year which would then provide habitat for the spadefoot toad. We're just gonna put down a couple of little logs there to provide a little bit of habitat for the frogs or toads. And then we have created an upland buffer between the wetland line currently and what we're proposing to put this 5,000 plus square foot area to plant some upland shrubs to provide some habitat for protection for the, you know, spadefoot toads as was directed by Jake at the National Heritage per Aaron provided us that guidance. And all of this was based on guidance provided by Jake and the pool itself will be seeded with a grass seed mix. We wanted to keep it grasses because we didn't wanna put any sort of wetland plants in there obviously that wouldn't survive or any type of like a conservation seed mix would have more larger flower plants like goldenrods and Joe Pie Wade that just might not, I don't know if it would choke it out or just might not be conducive to a veral pool. So we kept it just seeded with grass seed mix and the edges planted with the farm field edges and some of the other edges planted with a conservation seed mix and then some upland and mixed in with some fac, fac wet like blueberries, things like that on the edges towards the wetland side. And then as I mentioned over as you move to the left or I think that's the West, we have about a 605 square foot wetland area that's gonna be planted with some shrubs and herbaceous species. And then as you can see that black line over to the left separates what we're calling the mitigation area B which is the 1400 square feet that's gonna be created and planted with a variety of shrubs and native or grasses and sedges like trunkus effusus and things like that in there. And then if as a protection measure and to ensure we have hydrology to these wetlands in case that beaver dam successfully stays away we wanna make sure this wetland area stays hydric and stays has hydrology. So we're gonna create a little channel in the currently delineated wetlands to help keep that hydrologic connection. But we've created a high enough burn with an upland area between the pool and the wetlands. So hopefully this pool will maybe groundwater fed. I think that's it. I don't know, Erin, if you wanna add anything else to our discussion on this, but I think that covers it. Yeah, so I mean, and just, I've have tried to really keep the commission sort of informed about this project over the last year or so cause the discussions have been going on for quite a while about this. But some time ago I was in communication with Melissa about the need to create the access road for structure access on the POTX substation. And the question became really like they could replicate on site again, which they did for the previous order of conditions from last October, but they're, you know, the impact and I'm talking relative here, but the impact to the wetland is so relatively small that what it ends up being is this basically going in, clearing a bunch of woody established woody vegetation that's native in order to go in and level it and dig out, you know, say 600 square foot wetland area next to it to try to replicate on the site with the substation. And we're sort of trying to think creatively about how, you know, we could do something that would be like an interesting sort of partnership that would be a win-win for Eversource and also for the town. And so that's how discussion of this came up. And initially, you know, we've been so challenged by the beavers on POTX because they're basically flooding out the entire property and it makes it really difficult. Our trail system is underwater and the only solution that we've been told will be effective here is to remove them because as Melissa referenced, the dam that they've created is basically a linear dam across the field that's made out of sticks and mud. And so it's not a typical situation where they're blocking out a culvert or something like that where we can just, you know, put in a beaver deceiver. It's such a linear configuration and they're flooding such a large swath of land that really just removing them is the only way to resolve the flooding, which is occurring on the conservation area and it's also flooding out the right of way which runs through the property. So and in conversations with Dave, we thought the spadefoot toad fernel pool creation would be a really unique and interesting project to do on a piece of conservation land. We could monitor it, perhaps involve some educational component for the public and that it would be more of a benefit as opposed to adding a tiny little wetland over next to the substation. Exactly. And so Aaron, do you wanna put back up your pictures for those who did not have the opportunity to be out there? It's really beautiful for those who haven't been out there. It is. So the top photo, zoom out a little bit. The top left photo is the impoundment and actually, can you guys see my cursor? Yes. Okay. So you can see the right of way. You can see the electric pole here and the line running here. The impoundment runs basically right along here and it's a linear impoundment and it's very large and very long. The first time I went out to see this, which was probably three months ago, much of this area was not underwater. They are exponentially making this more and more flooded. And so if you're standing at the edge of the wetland, like say right about where my cursor is and you're looking north, that's pretty much your view there. And I believe this linear line here is showing the beaver impoundment. Is that right, Melissa? Yes. Okay. So then if you back out a little bit, so if I was standing sort of in that general area and looking west, you can see the Valley Light Opera Barn and then looking the top right is facing the mitigation area west. So you can still see that right-of-way line running there. It's just, I kind of backed out a little so you could see the general area where the mitigation and the pool would be constructed. And then this is facing the bottom photos facing north along that tree line there. So there was a little snafu with the DEP file number, which we were able to actually resolve at the end of the day today, which was incredible. But basically they had the wrong town name apparently and it was assigned to the wrong region. And so we were able to resolve it and Mark Stinson got ahold of it tonight. I haven't actually had a chance to even look at the DEP file number comments, but I could pull those up if you want while we take other questions. I can also summarize them too, if you want to. Is there anything for natural heritage on this? So this particular location is outside of natural heritage, any natural heritage polygon. There is a polygon to the south, there's a polygon to the north and there's a polygon to the west. And I know the polygon to the south is related to a fern, an endangered fern. As far as the one to the west, that may actually be spadefoot, but I'm not positive on that. Okay, and another issue that came up in the field today was potential issues with the right of way for where the easement is for the right-of-way. We thought that was clear, but Melissa, do you know if that was cleared or does Jonathan know if that was? If you, when Erin's done, if she pulls up the plan, there's a black box that shows the limits, the complete limits of the entire view of the mitigation area. And it looks to be print, the majority, almost all of it is well away from the line. The only thing that I just need to double-check is the channel that is proposed that might get close to the 25 foot, is a 25 foot, well, it's a 50 foot right away, but it's usually 25 feet from the center, so from the pole usually. So if we measure 25 feet from the pole out, which I need to get the pole GPSed, and if we find that that channel is right at that 25, then we can always pull that channel back or angle it a little bit differently, but other than that, I don't think anything else is gonna be in that area. So I do think that this plan may still need to be tweaked a little bit, just maybe Jake wants to look at it or that may change something a little bit. So I'd be willing to, Erin put some sort of condition in the plan to just have some sort of approval by you and the commission for the final plan, something like that, if you guys are okay with that. I'm not expecting anything major. I do also wanna have a beaver company, just take a look at that beaver dam too and just confirm that we can definitely remove that and trap beavers and all that. I think Erin, you had mentioned you had talked to them and it said it's not conducive to having a beaver deceiver. So we know that there is a possibility that the beaver dam and the beavers could come back, but this is, we're putting this mitigation area in the currently impounded outside of any of the wetland limits. So hopefully it would stay that way, even if the beavers came back. They've been there for a couple of years now. So. And so remove means kill, just to be clear on that. So beavers are not moved somewhere else. So, and then yeah, there's always that issue with beavers that they will come back at some point. I don't, so, but that doesn't negate anything that's going on here, but just point that out. So commissioners are particularly people, well, I was gonna say particularly people have been out there, but anybody, anybody have thoughts or comments? I know that Fletcher, you had some thoughts out in the field. Yeah, nothing major. I mean, I think it's a good opportunity to do this project. Like I said, Melissa, we talked about with the plantings. If you can do something that's bigger to make sure that, so we're not dealing with seedlings and stuff like that. So just make sure when the invasives do come in that at least the stuff you plant has an opportunity to thrive. And then we haven't talked, there's any chance that we can, and maybe this is a town thing, but on the podic side, when you walk in and then it's flooded, when you get to the right away, there's a clogged culvert. Well, it looks to be an old beaver deceiver maybe in there. Yeah. Is there a chance we can get that? We're, Dave and I are definitely keenly aware of the area you're talking about Fletcher and it is on our radar majorly and it is in, so the goal with that area is once the water recedes from the beavers that we'd like to get in there and remove that and evaluate at that point, putting in either a raised boardwalk situation just to elevate the trail and keep people out of that area altogether or to put in a bridge, but that could really only be determined once the beavers are out, because right now it's so, the whole area is so underwater that it's difficult to kind of assess any way of resolving that. Right. Okay, that's yeah, no problem. And then the other thing we talked to Melissa and Jonathan about was when we do, when this frontal pool gets created, I think this would be a really wonderful opportunity to talk about why we're doing it, so signage. I mean, I don't know if we can say like, hey, there's a rare something in here, but why do we do this? And clearly what we're gonna get into the next agenda item is that there's gonna be additional trails being in there. So I have a feeling this place is gonna get a lot more use out of it. So I think some type of signage would be kind of cool. I totally agree with you Fletcher and that's definitely something that's on my radar screen as well. And to your point, one of the things that I've been sort of negotiating with Eversource because of the Fairmont to Montague Structure Line Replacement Project and their tree removal and their wetlands impacts and their riverfront impacts, which are extensive, but we also, and I think this may have been, you might have missed it because it may have been reviewed when you missed a meeting or two, but we'll go over that in more detail this evening, but one of the things is an account that basically will provide us with substantial funds that we can use to, for any type of mitigation, education, tree removal, tree planting, so that we can address wetlands issues on the conservation lands in town, responsibly. And so that I think would be something that would be really excellent to incorporate, I agree. And I know UMass already, because I took a class at UMass and we were out on Podic doing wetland delineation. I know they use that property for educational purposes already, so it'd be really cool to number one, to incorporate the replication area as a study, but also if we could ever, if there was ever a need to transplant spadefoot toads if we could really create an environment that was hospitable to them, it would be really cool to be able to take a look at that, so. Yeah. Yeah, and Erin, when you talk to Fletcher about how we, I'm sorry, I'm calling you by your last name, I apologize. No, Fletcher's the first name. Okay, all right, good. You're right on. Sorry about that. No problem. And we talked about that, BSC and Eversource would be happy to help with that and have, I'm sure Eversource would love to have their name and be a part of that and recognize that they contributed to this as well as BSC. So Erin, we'd be happy to help with that, put something together. Yeah, it'd be cool. I do, well, let's talk about these comments and then I wanna go back to the beaver well, let's talk about that now since we're kind of on it and these questions have to do with the road or the mitigation site, but we still, like I mentioned, I still wanna confirm that with the beavers and I know you've had some conversations, did you have a conversation that they can definitely remove that dam or is that something they? Yeah, so I was in touch with Beaver Solutions and my goal was to create a beaver deceiver, something that would allow the water to drain but not require the removal of the beavers and that was really my goal in reaching out to them and trying to get them to come up with something and they came out and looked at it and they said that this site is just really not a candidate, it would not be successful. They had recommended another company to do the trapping. Okay. And so, I mean, I could certainly, we could come back to that. They sort of knew that this was on the radar screen for the town, but we just didn't have the resources. Yeah, so I mean, I just, I think if it's, because it's just a bunch of mud, you know, simply just be shovels and getting it out of there, but I wanna also just make sure that if we do need to tweak something in terms of that, it's okay to do it under either an amendment or a field change or something in terms of that and that we were okay closing the hearing because they don't necessarily have a straight answer on the dam removal. The dam removal. Yeah, so I've dealt with this quite a bit on some other projects and I think as long as the commission approves that the dam be incrementally dismantled, that we should be in good shape once the beavers are removed. And that's something that, I mean, we can discuss, but like, I know the guys who do our land management had expressed early on like, hey, would it be okay if we take this down? Cause they're just not, you know, they're not necessarily aware of the regulatory or legal consequences of something like that. So I let them know, like definitely don't do that, but once it's incorporated in the order of conditions, it's something that, and we would definitely want to be very cautious and very careful about drawing this down in a incremental, very slow manner cause there's so much water behind it. I think the trapping of the beavers is really gonna be the key component to getting this issue resolved. Okay, and we can work with you on the company. I know Eversource has another company they use as well. Jonathan and I talked about, so okay, good. It sounds like you're pretty confident. And I feel like this can be removed as well. So I didn't want it to hold anything up, but I just wanted to just make that point. Hey, Brett, could I make a quick comment before we leave the beaver? Please. Oh yeah, I've been listening intently. I guess I just wanted to make it clear, particularly to the new commission members, you know, it strikes me as we're having these conversations that anytime we're talking about beaver removal, which as Brett pointed out is, is really the beavers are destroyed. They can't be relocated. They can't be moved. You know, I have never taken such recommendations lightly when we bring them to the commission, in large part, because fundamentally you say, well, so if beavers can't do their thing on conservation land, where can they do them? Where can they do their thing, right? So I guess the bottom line I wanted to express is that in my time with the commission and with the department, with the town, we've only done this, I would say a handful of times. And in this case, really a couple of things are in play. One is, you know, I have great concern about the electrical service, the line that is being impacted by the beaver flooding. If you've never seen kind of a before and after when beavers do their thing, which is wonderful and great for habitat, but they move a tremendous amount of earth, mud, water, and when they move on or when they're trapped or when they die, it is pretty dramatic what comes after. And so I am first and foremost very concerned about the infrastructure there that crosses Podic and Catherine Cole. Secondly, Fletcher pointed out the trail to Podic. Really, there's no easy way to get to the Podic conservation area right now. So you really need to walk through a lake to get there. So our trail is completely impassable from the east. If you wanna go through, excuse me, I'm talking about Podic, the Podic trail is completely impassable. If you wanna get to Podic, you need to go all the way through Catherine Cole and go around all the way to the far west and come back through. So, and I really strongly suspect that when the water recedes after we've reached the dams, we're probably gonna have to rebuild that trail and the culvert that Fletcher you, that stream crossing that Fletcher you referenced earlier. So I think there's gonna be a lot of work when the water recedes to reestablish that trail. So I just wanted to emphasize that we don't take any recommendation to trap beavers lightly or it comes with I think a lot of responsibility and a lot of forethought. We have beavers all over on conservation land and they do their thing and they're great for habitat and wildlife in general and we enjoy them, but this is a situation where I think they're now flooding many, many acres of land and impacting the infrastructure as well as the trails. So I just wanted to add them. Thank you. I get the impression that since I've joined the commission that we have more problems with beavers than we do with people. Does anybody know how many beavers there are in Amherst? No. I mean, are we talking about a hundred, 50? 20. It's not a number that's captured in the census. Well, just like they don't keep track of bears in town as we know, but you know, that's in some cases they don't want to know how, they don't want people to know how many are here. But I often wonder about those things. Give Harvey Allen a call. He probably has the number for you. Yeah, all right. With the amount of wetlands we have, we could support hundreds of mating pairs of beavers easily. Yeah, I don't disagree. I mean, just to give you a ballpark. It is funny about just the commission having a deal with beavers more than many other things. Anyway. Yeah, it's actually a big thing across the whole country, Larry. It's not just here. Beavers are a major issue in lots of places. Well, yeah, except I go back to the thing as I'm going to pass that, but the idea that this used to be called the Hadley wetlands, the Hadley swamp, and so forth. I mean, you'd expect it to be here. I mean, you'd expect that to be the case, but it is interesting. Okay, so we definitely have to deal with the comments, but I think the comments are more about PODC. So why don't we concentrate to start off with the new created wetland? And so do people have questions or comments on that one? I have two for you, Melissa. So first, I think, so the grasses that you're gonna be planting, I assume those are all native grasses? Oh, yes, definitely. Okay, I thought so. My other question is related to building or construction. So I assume that there's gonna be heavy equipment that's used, and I assume that they're gonna go in that road that comes off of 116. Yes. And so making sure that they do it the right time of year when that road is not flooded, like if they went in now, they would just destroy that road. Has there been some thoughts of that? I know Erin and I talked about that, she kind of wants the mitigation to be created as soon as possible. So we were talking about spring, but maybe we do need to wait until it's dry. I mean, this time of year is usually pretty dry, but we've been in a drought, but we had a bunch of rain. So that's why it was so kind of muddy and wet in there. But I think if we do it in the dry season, I think that would be good. I mean, ultimately, if that's what you guys want, we can definitely do that, but we would definitely come in that road using the upland access and then cut across the field using the access. That is something that Jonathan and I talked about was that we did not actually show the access, and we can absolutely, as part of the updates to the plan show that, I think we probably would probably want to use matting, so we wouldn't want to mess up the fields with the equipment other than the areas that we're supposed to be impacting. So we should probably document that on the plan as well. So that is something that we could add. That'd be a lot of matting to go all the way in from the road. Just in the wetland areas though, I think would make sense, because there is a wetland that is, I think, possibly partially crossed by that road. Also that road though, Erin, I mean, it was super wet right now. Yeah, I've been out there, I was out there this summer, and there was definitely still a wet low spot closer to the Valley Lake Opera Barn. But once you get further west, it was higher and drier, but this time of year, I agree with you, I was out there this morning too, and I was sloshing in my muck boots. I was just gonna comment to Melissa that that barn is owned by the Valley Lake Opera, and so we wanna just make sure that if we can avoid crossing their property, I think that would be good. If it can't be avoided, then we should try to seek out maybe permission from them to access back there, but that might be more of a question for Dave. Dave's on Mac. I think matting would be the best way to do it. Honestly, that's the only way to do it. Yeah. It's a lot of mats, a lot of mats. Look what they're using to put in the power poles. I mean. I mean, the other thing we could do is we could definitely mat in from the beginning, you know, where we're crossing the barn, and it does look like, yeah, you're right, we do cross a little bit of the wetland, and then once we get into the upland access road, you know, we can stop using it and then we can always restore, or we just mat. You know, I can talk to Jonathan and see what he thinks and have maybe someone go check it out and see if it's possible to do this without, you know, damaging that area. And to your point, Melissa, I think it would make a whole lot of sense to include a DEP file number sign in both locations, not just at the substation site for that work, but also a DEP file number sign for the town property and possibly even a sign with like a little explanation that this work is wetland mitigation restoration work that's being done in partnership with the town, just so that people, because people will see heavy machinery back there on town land and wonder what's going on and it will be an opportunity to educate people. And so I think that might be a good thing to include. Okay. Okay, anything else on the vernal pool and the toad pool? So, okay, so I don't think I've had a chance to look at the comments. I don't know if Erin, you wanna summarize them or if you want Melissa to summarize those. So I'll just jump in the one, so the first one is the conflict with the work that was the previous file number. And Melissa, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the work was completed that was associated with that previous order of conditions. And there is a replication area which was created on the north side already, the north side of the substation as part of that. And I believe we're just in the monitoring phase right now of the replication area. And other than that, I don't think there's really any work associated with that that's going on. Yeah, I mean, I took a look at the mitigation area. I can send you photos and it's pretty successful and I think it's pretty complete. I was gonna work on getting that closed out because I think it's, it looks great. Somebody's echoing. That's okay. It might be a good idea for people who aren't talking to me. I don't know if somebody's got two mics on. We'll see if that helps. The other one that really jumped out at me, Melissa, which I actually agree with in Mark's comments here are the issue with basically cutting off the hydrologic connection between the wetlands. And so I definitely think that it makes a lot of sense to incorporate some kind of connections in the access road that you're creating. So... Yeah, I have a suggestion on that too. Yeah, I totally, yeah, I didn't even, I don't know why I didn't even think about that, but yeah, I mean there is a little, I don't know if you wanna pull it up on my ER map, the ER map, but there's a little square right at the substation fence that we would essentially cut off. Now, what we've done before with something like this with access roads is you could put a larger stone under the ground to create kind of a ford where the water can move, still have a hydrologic connection between the rocks. And I think in this situation, because he suggested a culvert's, and I just think it's such a to put culverts by, it's, I mean, it's such a dry area. It's not like it's like a very wet area. And to put a culvert right by the substation where it could potentially add, I don't know, impact the substation, not saying that it would, it just, it doesn't seem to be the best thing. You mean if it became blocked or something or crushed or something to that effect that it could pull water? Yeah, I could pull water. Yeah, it could cause flooding in the substation. So my thoughts are, and we've done it before, and I can get a design to you too, you know, as another condition of the permit is that we can create like a, you use a larger stone underneath and then you top it with a smaller stone. So the water would flow through the rocks underneath and still be able to provide that hydrologic connection. Now, Melissa, how frequently would this access road be being used and what type of vehicles would be driving on it? That's a good question, Jonathan, if you wanna speak to that, but I think it's not something that's gonna be used all the time. I think there's a project that might be coming up where they need to get back to the back of the substation. It's gonna be used for any emergencies or future maintenance. It's one of those things that it's just difficult to get back in the back, back here. And you have to be able to, as you can see on the aerial, there's infrastructure everywhere. And to get back there is difficult. So they want this back access with the gates in the back so they can get to the back infrastructure there. But it's mainly for emergencies. Yeah, and just to point out because it's not clear really on here, sort of where my cursor is, there's a huge, huge transmission line that comes in in that back area. And that's actually the Montague de Fairmont line comes into the substation through there. So it's not really shown as right of way on here, but on the east side, excuse me, the east side of that substation, the transmission line comes into the sub. Melissa, according to this map, that gravel road is actually not on Eversource land. Whose land is that? Correct, it's on. I think it's on Mr. I forget his name. Yes, thank you. But they have, this will be an easement. They have been working on easements. I think they already have one because we had to get one to put the bowl here. So there is an easement. Technically they don't own it, but there is, I've seen the documentation that there is an easement here. Okay, okay. Are there other pieces of the DEP comments, Erin, that we should go over? So this issue with the fee. The fee that I selected was just a project that doesn't fit into the other categories because I didn't know if this would be considered a commercial or an industrial road. Some of the, sometimes determining the correct fee can be a little tricky because there's not always an exact category that fits the project to a T. So that's something that we can kind of work out behind the scenes, I think. So I just, I don't want to take the commission's time with that, but Melissa and I can touch base on that to make sure that we're addressing that properly. So that, you know, number three, like, so the, and I run into this, I run into this quite a bit is basically to determine that the project is a limited project, basically would be to say that there's no other alternative to the work and that it has to, that this work has to happen. There's no other feasible alternative to this work taking place. And that's basically what Mark is getting at. And the limited projects are reserved for when a project cannot be redesigned to avoid the wetland. And I can't speak for Eversource and I certainly don't want to, but I can say that if they didn't, if they could avoid filling that wetland and spending all this time and expense doing a replication area, they probably would. But, but yeah, I mean, I typically consider utility projects if we can't come up with an alternative to avoid an area that, you know, that they be given limited project status because they're providing, you know, service to the community, but that's really the commission's discretion to determine if it's a limited project and if it can be avoided, mitigated in any way the work that's being proposed. And that's they're going to put in some sort of hovering bridge. I don't, it doesn't seem like it. Yeah, yeah. It wouldn't really be safe for equipment to be able to really do that. Okay, so, and then, yeah, so I'm not quite sure how we have to proceed, but yeah, I don't think it should be. I mean, I mean, if you feel like we need to continue for some of the stuff, I think every source is fine with that in terms of if we need to reach out to the opera bar, I'm sorry, the opera, the people who own the barn property and get you some more of this information, it's fine if you feel like we could move forward with that and get you the information, you know, as conditions or working with you guys and to ensure we get you something final in coming back and even presenting that to you, whatever you guys feel is good for that as well. Okay. Feels like there's still a bunch of, it's nothing huge, but there's a bunch of enough little things that it seems like a continuation from my perspective would be cleaner. Yeah, I agree. And I also think that with considering the mitigation area is associated with Montague Fairmont, which we left very open-ended, I think on this one, we should really nail it down with a final plan that's as close as we can get it. Okay. Brett, could I just add, at this point, I don't think there's any, I would prefer that we not reach out to the Valley Light Opera folks. I mean, I'm talking with them about regrading the road, parking for Podek and Catherine Cole. So I think whatever is decided, I think we can, I think gaining access over their property is not going to be an issue, but I just don't want to complicate matters with them at this point. So I think we can just, I'm happy to work on that when the time is right. So I think we can save that step for spring, spring early summer of 21. Okay. Sounds good. And so, Erin, did you have any additional thoughts on timing? Erin Melissa's comments, but I'd love to hear what you have to say on that. Yeah, so my only comment on timing, as far as creation of the wetland, is that this is in an ideal situation, in an ideal world, what you would want to do is create the replication area before the wetland impacts take place. And to make sure that it's adequately established before the work to essentially destroy the wetland that's being replicated. So that would be my only real request here, but I think weather has been such an incredible wildcard that I don't think that we should really nail down and say we should do it at this time or that time. I think what we should do is try to keep an eye on the weather patterns and see what's going on and try to do it at the most responsible time and put the most mitigation measures in place that we possibly can during construction because we could have a really dry spring, we could have a really dry summer, and to get us locked into something and then have our hands tied if we have an opportunity, I think would be unfortunate. So, yeah, I'm sorry, I just cut you off. I was gonna say the other challenges too is when they need that road built. They may need that road built before the spring. That's the only thing. So if they may have to do that road before we get the mitigation done. Yeah, I wouldn't wanna hold that up. I mean, because that has potential, all sorts of potential bad issues if that doesn't go in. So I appreciate what Erin is saying and I agree. She used the word ideal and I'll just stress that one too. Yeah, of course. Yeah, we gotta do what we gotta do and yeah. Okay, so any other comments? So from the commission, I'll open up to the two people from the public as well. So if you're from the public and if you have comments, you can raise your virtual hand. Okay, so I'm not seeing any there. Any other commissioners have anything? Yeah, so say it again what we're talking about for the reasons for continuation. So I have to nail down the access location where access is going to be placed. And then if there's any matting that's gonna be put in place where that matting is gonna be located. And then also a plan for incorporating a hydrologic connection in the access road on the substation site to just to address the DEP comment. Okay, oh, I'm sorry. So that wasn't in the plan, right? Okay, I understand, okay. Well, Larry, you're on mute. Will this substantially hold up the project? Delay? I don't think so. I think if we could, you know, let's see what's the date today. Okay, when is your next? We only have one meeting in November and it's on November 18th. Okay, if we can try to aim for that, I think that would work. It seems like pretty small stuff, so I don't see anything hanging up. Yeah, we'll get you a typical kind of drawing for the road and then we'll work out what we think we'd be best about the access. Okay, so anybody else have any questions or Melissa or anybody else from the applicant have any? Okay, so I guess we are looking for a motion for continuation to the 18th of November. Do you have a time for us, Erin? 7.40 PM. So moved. Second. Okay, looking for a voice vote. So Fletcher? Aye. Larry? Aye. Jen? Aye. LaRoy? Aye. Laura? Aye. And I for me as well. So Melissa, we'll see you on the 18th and Jonathan and Daniel, we'll see you as well. All right, thank you very much. Yeah, you guys have a good night. Thank you for you as well. Okay, so for the next one, are we proceeding with that one tonight? Erin? So we, I'll just give a really quick update on that and then let me just, oops, zoomed in too far here. So there was a couple of procedural issues with the POTIC Trail project that were, well, the first is basically that the, the abutters weren't properly notified. And so I recommend that we don't take any testimony on that hearing until all the butters are notified. And that legal notice, or the abutter notice rather was going out today for the November 18th meeting at 7.35. So the applicant's representative did submit a request to continue. We did receive just as a sort of side note, we did receive extensive DEP final number comments and I have been working with Dave and the applicant to address those comments so that we can come back on the 18th with a plan to address all of the comments and in a responsible manner to the best of our ability. Okay, excellent. So that sounds good. And just to sort of point a reference on this one. So this one was opened, I believe. And so, so I guess this only applies to you, Fletcher. If you wanted to be able to vote on this one next time, you'd have the joy of going back and listening to the recording or something like that. There's everything's on YouTube, right? They are. And also what I recommended to the applicant is that when they come back on the 18th, that we basically, even though the hearing was opened and it was posted legal advertisement, that they essentially start back from scratch with the presentation, just to make sure that if any butters are tuning in that they have the opportunity to get the full presentation. So whether Fletcher watches that one or not, I'm not sure, you know, he'll probably get a full picture regardless at the meeting on the 18th. So if you're looking for it. Sounds much better. If you go before it, but if not, sounds like you're good. Yeah, cause they've been working out there. Like trails have been rerouted. There's like, there's a lot of work that's already been done out there. On POTIC? Yeah. New blazes, new trail. Yeah. Oh, maybe in the upland areas, Fletcher. Yeah, upland. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, mostly upland. Yeah, yeah. And it crosses a field to Catherine Cole. Okay. So does anybody have any questions on this or is anybody from the public have any comments on this one? So, you know, we're going to be continuing this. Okay. So looking for a motion for continuation until November 18th, then. I think somebody raised their hand, Brett, Amali in the audience. And when, oh, it goes up and it goes down. Okay. So Amali, you should be able to talk at this point. Hello, it's Pete Westover. Oh, hello, Amali Pete. Yeah, I've been here for a couple of hours. It's not Amali, she's my colleague, but I just wanted to comment on the idea that trail work has been going on. I don't know anything about that and I'd be surprised. He might be talking about the guys from the conservation department doing, because there was some hazard trees out there and there may have been trail blazes that were fixed, but I don't know, I don't know for certain. What I saw was there's a new trail I got blazed through the fields in between Catherine Cole and Podek on the west, for this west side. And then there's new blazes that went from red to yellow. Are those on the Amar side fletcher or on the Hadley side? Oh, I don't know. That's a good question. Probably the Hadley side actually. It's on the furthest west point where- I think you are talking about the Hadley side. Yeah, so I must be talking about the Hadley side. Yeah, I didn't think about that. That's all, that's all, that's what I noticed. Thank you. So Pete, while you're on, do you have anything else you wanted to add? No, no, that's fine. And I just wanted to mention that the additional the butters to be notified are almost all piece of 116, and they are definitely all more than a third of a mile away. So we'll cover that, I'll get that out tomorrow. And we did have a, I had a, I thought it was a good meeting with Aaron and Dave about the delineating. I mean, it is, I know you don't want discussion tonight, but I think it strikes me as overkill because we were stating, stipulating that the area is entirely BBW, but that will make the EP happy and we'll get the delineating done and then be ready to better make the case for the project. Sounds good, thank you, Pete. Okay, thanks, Brett. Yeah, I'm glad you're able to join us and sorry you had to hang on so long. Oh yeah, no problem. So any other comments before we look for continuation? No, we're good, Aaron? Yes. Okay, do we have a time for the 18th, 7.45 or? 7.35 on November 18th. Looking for a motion. Yeah, I move to make continue the NOI for the gross bog bridging to 7.35 on November 18th. I second that. Thank you. Looking for a second? Second, I second that. Thank you, Laura. Okay, voice vote. Fletcher? Aye. Laura? Aye. Larry? Uh-oh, Larry looks frozen. Oh, no. Sorry about that. Aye. Again? Aye. And LaRoy? Aye. And aye for me as well. So Pete, we will see you then. Good, thank you very much. Hey guys, I have to sign off for tonight. Bye, Jen. Bye, everyone. Thank you. Bye. Enjoy. Bye. Be safe. Okay, so that's the last one of our official agenda items, but Aaron, I'm sure you have more for us. Oh yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I'm gonna try to go through this as quick as we can. So I think the first one that we should, so that there's two ever source items, do we still have somebody on from ever source right now? In our... Yeah, we have two people still. Okay, Johnson, okay. So one thing, and I think we should get this addressed right off the bat, because we were just talking about the Montague to Fairmont project and how their mitigation is tied into the work on the POTIC substation and the Zala property. So I'll just say like, let's just talk about this now and get it over with. And there, the contacts are here, so. Okay, so Dan and Jonathan, you should be able to speak when you're so desired. Great, thanks very much, as Dan Nitchie representing ever source. As you just mentioned, Jonathan Robert is on the line. Steve Leco from the GZA is also listening in. I don't know if he's identified as a participant or a panelist under this. So we got our order conditions or received our conditions from the commission about a month and a half or so ago that's been recorded. And some information came to light from the tree clearing crew or the tree evaluation crew, Lewis Tree, after the closing of the hearing. We had it down as a 35 foot study area and through some evaluations through ever source, they discovered that they actually needed a 50 foot area evaluated. And so the additional 15 feet was added, was evaluated and came up with a number after the order was issued. And so it almost triples the amount of tree clearing in Riverfront and BVW. We've supplied the commission, specifically Aaron, with a document outlining the items of the order conditions that have already been approved, including telephone poles over Amethyst Brook with signage, fencing, things of that nature. We also had a requirement under the order conditions for the 1,400 square foot wetland replication area, which as you heard this evening is part of the POTIC project at this point. It made the most sense to just add on a 1,400 square foot to their larger 5,000 square foot plus or minus wetland system they were creating. So we believe that we are satisfying that requirement of the order of conditions by providing a design and hopefully at your 18th meeting you'll approve that order of conditions that would include that 1,400 square feet. So what's remaining really is the additional mitigation slash compensation for the additional tree clearing that we've discovered. We've used the math equation that was used on the previous order conditions. And so an additional $21,000 is going to be made available to the Amethyst Conservation Commission for ecological projects. As Erin mentioned earlier, we're not specifically earmarking the money for one kind of project. It's whatever you folks think is appropriate within your community that generally has an ecological improvement component. We're ever sourced and satisfied with that type of usage of their dollars. So what we're looking at for a grand total really is a $36,000 contribution for ecological projects within the community because of the additional, well, because of the tree clearing at all, we now have a grand total. Thank you, Erin, for bringing up that table so that sort of arranges what was in the original order and then what's being essentially proposed now as sort of a revision or administrative change to the order of conditions. And I'll leave that to you, Erin, unless Jonathan, if you had anything you wanted to add. No, thank you, Dan. That sums it up perfectly. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I'll just say that I met with Eversource on multiple occasions to talk about this and to review sort of the best approach versus like taking a project specific approach that Eversource could take on to address the tree removal in a mitigation form. And also, my concern was because in the approved order of conditions, we had come up with this equation for replacement of 200 trees removed, which ended up being about $15,000. And so my concern was if we almost triple that, we're gonna be telling the guys in the, in the, you know, our field crew, hey, you're gonna have to plant like 600 trees as mitigation and it just feels like that's not the greatest, you know, we've got so many projects, like we were just talking about on PODEC, how we have a clogged culvert. And, you know, we're gonna have to address that. Like there's so many things like that that we have on conservation lands and that $36,000 could be really well utilized on conservation lands throughout town to address things that we don't otherwise have a account to cover. And ordinarily our hands are tied to address. And so ultimately we decided that just providing financial amount to the commission so that we could decide what we wanted to do in terms of future mitigation projects as compensation for this would be the most logical thing. And so that's what we agreed on and what I suggested that they come up with as a proposal. That all sounds, yeah, that all sounds great, Erin. So one sort of comment for me just to the internally is there's a bunch of pots of money right now sitting around for trail work and that sort of stuff. And I'm not quite sure if we have the capacity to do all of it internally. And so, you know, maybe the town should think about contracting some of that out or something. I don't know if you or Dave have thought about that, Erin. Absolutely. And I mean, I think, you know, it's interesting because, you know, with a lot of the trail projects it's like how to get it done without putting the cart before the horse, you know. And like an example is the Amethyst bridge replacement, right, because the permitting is done and the one thing is the financial ability for us to purchase poles. So when this project came along, it was like, okay, that's the next logical step, get the poles. And then we can get the bridge in. And it's like getting those steps in. And so sometimes that's the one hold up. And it might be something like getting somebody out to delineate wetlands. You know, it might be, you know, getting somebody out to delineate a stream. It might be, you know, hiring somebody to go through the permitting process for us. And I think that the benefit of this is that it's gonna be open-ended in the sense that we can make the decision how we can use the dollars to most efficiently get this stuff done. And I think that it will tremendously help us to do that because a lot of times it's the things like delineating that really are the problem with us getting a permit submitted because we can't get out there and like I can't go out and delineate the wetland and then sit on both sides of the table. So it's like, it would just give us a little bit of a boost to get some of those things done. Great. Okay. So this is an amendment that we're talking about. So I don't know if there's anybody else from Eversource who has anything they wanna add or if there's any commissioners who have any comments or questions. And Steven, I'll promote you to panelists as well. So if you have anything you wanna add. So I mean, it seems fairly straightforward. I mean, so there's just the additional trees that got taken. The equation still makes sense to me. And yeah, having it be more flexible is great. Okay, so if I'm not hearing anything then we'll be looking for a motion to approve the amendment. And I would recommend that we approve it as a minor amendment to the order of conditions. And this is the DEP file number here. So I have to make a motion to approve the amendments. Minor amendments. Minor amendments to the order of conditions. For DEP file number 089-0675. Thank you, I couldn't read that. Thank you. Second. Okay, so looking for a voice vote, Larry. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Laura. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. And Jen fell off. And then I, for me as well. So I think we're good on this one. So is there another issue that we get to address, Erin? That's it for this one. So our folks who are attending don't feel like you need to stay on but thank you guys for being on. Thank you for coming and you're more than welcome to stay about one character. So the other one, and this is quite a bit even more simple than the last is that at the last meeting, the commission had approved, it was a, so we had approved an emergency certification for work to repair a compromised cable on route 116. And then I had required them to file and after the fact request for determination, which they did. And in the course of the field work getting started out there, they realized that there was two trees that need to be removed on route 116 that are going to interfere with the cable repair. And so just make sure I'm showing you where the plan is that shows where they're located. That's unfortunate, I assume it's inevitable or unavoidable, I should say. It is unavoidable because it runs basically, well, it's gonna end up killing the trees and the trees are right on the road right of way. And so then it's gonna make the trees unsafe. So they're just basically looking for the board to approve the removal of those two trees because they weren't that wasn't noted in the original determination. And so are we asking them to replant those somewhere? I mean, you know. We absolutely could. But also are we making a motion? What are we? Yeah, I would make a motion. Yep. And so Brett, are you saying replant on 116 or replant on the new salsa property that we've acquired? Yeah, or providing funding to do it. Now we have a nice little equation. It makes it fairly easy. Yeah, good call. I like that. This is Alan Snow, it could take a couple more trees. That's what I'm thinking, kind of put it under his discretion. Would that work, Erin? Yeah, I mean, we could use the equation that we were just talking about, which is the equation that I had come up with for the mitigation. And it was 75. Yeah, $75 per tree. So, you know, the commission could request $75 per tree removed. Yep. And for planting elsewhere in Amherst. Well, whatever you call the ecological intentions that the town has. Yeah, these are street trees. I don't know. And I'd be more inclined to, you know, replant street trees somewhere, but. Sure. Yeah, I think that's totally legit. We've lost a lot of street trees recently. Yep. Okay, so can I make a motion to ever source to approve the second tree removal, but therefore we'll ask that they provide us a monetary equivalent of those two trees removed. Is that more? Yep. Which is whatever Erin's equation of $75 per tree. Perfect. Second. Okay, voice vote Fletcher. Aye. Larry. Aye. Laura. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. And aye from me as well. One more down there. Wonderful. Okay, keep burning through these. Okay. All right, I'm going to jump to this one next. Two requests for continuations. And the first one, I'll just really briefly touch on. I went out to take a look at this one today. And so I have some concerns with it, the continuation. It's difficult to get into at this late hour. And honestly, I feel like it would almost be better for me and Dave Zomek and Brett to possibly sit down and discuss this. But basically what I saw when I went out to the site was, this is a project, it was a order of conditions that was issued in 2017. And it was a basically two lot subdivision at the end of Canton Ave, which is very close to the high school off of Harvard and Whitney Street, I believe. And I walked the site and mostly what I was going out there to look at was the flagging, because whenever we do a continuation, I wanna just see that the wetland boundaries have not changed. And the flagging wasn't super fresh. There were some areas where I did see flagging from the original permit that was still hanging there. But what concerned me was one of the lots, there had been work that had started there. There was no DEP file number posted, there was no erosion controls installed. It looked like, and this is, I'm talking very close proximity to the wetlands. It looks like there was basically work had begun there to clear the lot with no mitigation, no abiding by the permit and the flagging in the area was gone. So there was no way for me to see where the wetland was. I think that the wetland could possibly have been impacted. So I don't want to recommend that we issue a continuation on it. I think we need to approach the landowner and say what's going on here and try to figure out how to move forward with it, but not recommending a continuation at this point. I don't know if others have comments on that, but... I think you should probably talk amongst yourselves. Brett, were you on this one? Were you on the commission when this happened, this particular? So this is a very contentious site. Every neighbor had something to say and it took a long time to get this approved. So... It still looks like it's in limbo. Why don't we have them go back to the beginning? This one's... Wasn't someone to do a lot of replication, brain gardens, anyway. It's bucky sparkle, right? Yeah, I don't particularly... I mean, it's my own personal opinion. I don't particularly care for the plan. I would have... I would have taken issue with a lot of the things on the plan if I was reviewing it from scratch, but that's not... I can't go back in time. What I can say is right now, there's issues and I don't recommend that we continue the permit until we find out what's going on exactly and kind of try to get it back in order. And then the commission could address it at the next meeting, maybe we could do an update. Yeah, it took me a minute to place where it was. Fletcher, oh yeah, I remember there were people very vocal and people not quite yelling at us, but pretty close. Yeah, pretty much. Yeah, and I can send out some site visit photos and maybe I can send them to Brett and Dave and we could find a time to do a Zoom call and discuss it really briefly and figure out the best path forward, but I don't think a continuation... Sounds like you're flagging to start. But particularly, I mean, if they're not meeting the current conditions, that's a serious, serious problem. And yeah, we just need one to continue. I mean, that's easy. Something like this should have had a pre-construction meeting. There should have been an erosion control inspection prior to work beginning on the site. There should have been a DP file number posted prior to work beginning on the site and the wetlands definitely were not marked. So people who are out there working, the wetland boundary is, I mean, I think that the wetlands were impacted by whatever happened out there. So yeah, we've got to take a big step back on that one. The Pomeroy Lane single family, let's move to the next one, just the Pomeroy Lane single family house is another continuation and I had asked that the flagging be refreshed on this one too. And I apologize because I went out there and looked, but I could not find this lot. It's just, it's like a pork chop lot that comes off of Pomeroy Lane, just to the east of Porfarm. And I just could not figure out where I was even going in and where, so I have to talk to Mike Liu and either have somebody go out there with me or have them flag where the entrance to the property is because I didn't want to trespass. Is this the one that has a long dry, a skinny long driveway up? Yes. Yeah. This is another very difficult, very difficult site. Yeah. They went through wetlands on that one. There was no choice. Yes. Correct. It's a weird one. Yeah. And recently actually, Dave sent me a form to review, which is our fees that we collect for permits. And one recommendation that I'm definitely going to make is that on these continuations that we charge more than $50, particularly if it's a large lot or if it's a subdivision, because this isn't me going out and taking a 15 or 20 minute site walk. This is literally like hours of brush, you know, bushwhacking, trying to find flagging. And I also think that we should be really carefully evaluating these before we issue continuances. And I think that, you know, Tefino is an excellent example of that. Yep, I think, I agree. We've got burned on that one. Yeah. Yep. Okay, so that's that. Do we have to, or should we move on those? There's nothing to move on, really. I've got to do a site visit for Palmer Lane and Canton Ave. I want to meet internally to discuss how to proceed with that because of the issue on the site. So monitoring reports, everything is in order with monitoring reports. The one site that has been sort of a question is, I believe it's 45 University Drive. So there's, I think it's 45 and 70. And we have these ongoing monitoring reports that we are getting from them. And they've repeatedly requested to stop doing the monitoring reports out there. My hesitation has been on number 45, which is the restaurant site that's immediately adjacent to the hangar. So they never did like a finished loam and seed on that site. And so what basically what happened was they finished construction of the building and then they just sort of left it and it grew back with all these weeds. And when the weeds grew back, most of the site is actually fine with the weeds. It's fairly stable, but in the back of the lot, I think it's actually in the area where the dumpster is located. What's happened is the weeds were so sparse that there was all this undercutting, these like sort of gullies that were formed in the soil on the upland side of the erosion controls. And I said, I really don't like that. And I don't want the monitoring to stop because I don't like this erosion that I'm seeing here. And then I said to them, well, are you gonna do a finished loam and seed? And they said, well, not this season, maybe in the spring. And I'm thinking, why are we gonna stop monitoring if they're gonna be loaming and seeding in the spring and then we're gonna be picking it up again? So I told them that they, I've recommended that we continue to monitor, but I wanted to present the situation to you guys. I mean, the same situation sort of applies on 70 University Drive because there's a, I don't know if you remember, but there was a electric car charging station that they had amended the permit to include. And when they installed that electric car charging station, they basically tore it up, put in the station, and then they threw down a bunch of like wood chips. It was in the middle of the winter, last winter, and then just left it. And so again, it's grown up with these weeds. And I'm like, if they stop monitoring, they can't come back next year and wanna loam and seed it and make it look really nice. And that's kind of what I'm afraid of. So it's really you guys call on the monitoring, but they're kind of annoyed with having to pay for monitoring every week on the site. And it's just sitting there and nothing's happening. So I wanted to get your perspectives on it. I have no problem with them continuing to monitor. Yeah, I mean, I'm not. I agree. Yeah, I guess my only thought was, do we need it every single week or is there like some kind of compromise? That's fair enough. Yeah. I mean, are they going to do it once a month? I mean, Erin. They are weekly. Once a month. Especially now because I'm actually, no, now it's gonna be the worst time I was gonna say because the ground's gonna freeze, but it's not going to. I mean, I could tell them once a month as long as no work is going on, but as soon as work is happening on the site, they have to go back to weekly. Yeah. Sounds good to me. There goes Larry. Bye Larry. I'm just taking care of my printing process. I'm doing two things at once. Okay. So the other thing, just wanted to give you a quick update on complaints. I did get a complaint a couple of weeks ago now for cordwood cutting that was going on in the vicinity of Pulpit Hill Road and Mill Street. And I'm talking very minor. There was, I think, three or four logs that were like felled dead snags that somebody went out and cut up with a chainsaw. And then there was one tree, which was a larger diameter, but it was definitely a live tree that was cut, that was cut possibly to be used as firewood adjacent to the wetlands back there. So maybe four trees total, three of them were dead, that were cut up in sections for firewood. I went out, the individual who complained, I went out, took pictures. I'm in the process of responding to the complaint with a letter to the landowners, basically addressing it. But what it alerted me to was that one of the landowners that are in that strip had had an enforcement order last June, I believe. And they had done a bunch of cutting on their neighbor's property and they had gotten an enforcement order and they were supposed to do a restoration plan. And I'm not sure whatever happened. I think Beth was leaving and I was coming and got kind of lost in the shuffle. So there's two correspondence that I sent to Dave and I'm working on getting out the door, which are basically to let the landowners know they can't cut firewood back there in the wetland and number two, an update on the enforcement situation. So that's one of the complaints. Another complaint is a driveway that was installed out on West Palm Roy without a permit. And so, but the kind of complicating factor was that DPW had issued a curb cut for it. So the landowner may not have known that they needed a permit from conservation. So Dave Z and I are working on getting in contact with them and following up. But just to kind of give you a heads up that those things were happening, but I didn't wanna waste too much of your time with it, just give you kind of a quick and dirty update. Appreciate it. And... Yeah, thanks. And that property was a weird one. So, or they were trespassing. Yes, yeah. And I think that's all my, all the items that I wanted to cover tonight. Excellent. Thank you, Aaron. Thanks for always being very well prepared in moving us through. So any other business anybody wants to talk about? If not looking for everybody's favorite motion. Move to adjourn. Second. Fletcher, how do you vote? I say aye. Larry. Aye. Laura. Not sure about Laura, LaRoy. I guess Laura abstains, so, but I vote aye. No, no, I'm here. I'm sorry. You know, my daughter didn't lose her tooth. She just swallowed her tooth. Just Laura, just say aye and we'd call it good. Aye. I'm sorry. It'll all come out in the end. It'll all come out in the end. There was just screaming and it'll lose tooth and it wasn't like she just swallowed it. There's pandemonium at the moment, so. That's exciting. And congratulations. Aye. Say aye. Okay, so we are officially closed. I think a special tooth fairy should come tonight. Yeah, no, I think you get extra dough for swallowing your tooth, right? Yeah, I think so. You get extra dough for the one who, yeah, puts it under their pillow. Yeah.