Good evening one and all people all ac across the planet who are watching us on TV. >> Um this is the water quality management committee. >> Today is Wednesday >> 29th. Let me know >> and uh go.
>> We're going to commence the meeting. Um we allow two hours to get through. If we don't get to anything within two hours, we bump it to the next meeting. Um, we've changed our schedule around a little bit from the past. We used to
have reports of members towards the end. We've moved it up. Um, the first item is always going to be summary of recent environmental actions by other communities and agencies because Ed religiously tracks this stuff. And I'm not putting a clock on you, Ed, but keep
it under 20 minutes. >> Oh, piece of cake. not not a lot new in the world but uh couple of items of interest. I think the um one is on April 24th
um MEPA environmental monitor publication had a decision by the secretary of energy and environmental affairs that uh they did
not need a new EIR for uh MASHB wake satellite plant that they have planned. And so what's happening there is Mashp decided a decentralized treatment plant for the Mashp pond area would be
appropriate because of conditions at the pond. And the secretary through 302page decision and background said this is not a a new major project or change that
requires a new EIR. it is writing along on the original EIR for MASHP's overall sewer plan. And interesting to note that part of her decision is based on the fact that these plans as submitted are
intended to evolve as things change, whether it's good or bad changes, density changes, new technologies. So, in all of her detailed analysis, she said because plans are updated every
five years, this is a an update to a pre-existing plan that actually goes back to 2012 or 2015. So, MASHB saved a lot of money in having to go through a detailed EIR. Um, the what's going to happen up there is a
satellite treatment plant with 3.2 2 miles of low pressure mains and serve a grand total of 210 houses figuring with a permit of 102,000 gallons per day. And um you know it was an interesting
decision because of how she recognizes that these plans are not carved in stone. Data gets better, data gets worse, technology improves. So that is uh an interesting point. Uh let's see what else. Felmouth Great
Pond phase one. Just in case everybody doesn't look at the website and read the updates, the low pressure mains that were supposed to start uh earlier this month have now been kicked to mid May or later due to a supply chain issue. So sewering there um laying the mains in
the street and putting in laterals will not happen for some weeks. Um let's see. Snug Harbor Channel cover the >> the 28 part is on hold. >> No, not 28. The the neighborhoods uh
around Perch Pond and that where they were going to put in low pressure sewer lines. So the actual start of that construction is pushed out to mid May or later because of supply chain issues. I don't know if the pipe Amy can probably elaborate on that, but
>> they continue. >> They're busy there right now. Hi, Amy Law, wastewater superintendent. So, the Great Pond phase one project, um, the contractor has a crew working on Route 28 between Sandwich Road and, uh, Marav Vista F Marav Vista Extension and, um,
they now expect to finish uh, that section in the week of May 11th. So they will be likely moving to the other side of Marav Vista in the week that follows, which is the only week that we have left
before Memorial Day. Uh so we'll be in Route 28 until uh the Friday before Memorial Day. The low what what um Ed correctly said is that our initial schedules showed that low pressure sewers were going to start being
installed I think early early April. And um the contractor has not yet begun that they actually it's they they end up switching suppliers is and so they don't have the materials yet. The it is not an if impact on the overall project
schedule. I got a couple of questions about this. People are concerned that the contractor is that his schedule their schedule was slipping. Um the low pressure sewer is expected to take about a year to install whereas the overall
project schedule is 21 months. Uh so they're you know they had originally planned to start sooner but they're now planning to start later. It doesn't affect the overall schedule. It just means that the low pressure sewer is starting a little later than planned. >> Thank you Amy. >> Thank you.
So, you know, they do publish on a weekly basis in the town website updates to the project, what streets are going to be closed, what activity will be taking place, but I know not everybody does that. So, I take this opportunity to bring it forth. Um
the only other uh thing that is of major interest as neighboring community are good friends in MASH and I I don't know Maggie may say some things a little later in the meeting about this but uh a big milestone be taking place Monday May
4 and also on May 9, the um town meeting and then a general election in Mashby. And there are two um items that are very important to the overall health of watersheds including
especially WOI bay which is one we share with MASHP and there's an article four town meeting and it's for $12 million to begin design of a wastewater facility and and collection system for the quite
bay watershed. The goal is to sewer, 150 homes, which would reduce the nitrogen into a quite bay they estimate by 30%. Pretty significant. Um, it requires a twothirds vote, this article, at town
meeting, uh, on May 4, and MASHP's rules are different in that any registered voter can vote at town meeting. It is not a representative town meeting as Felmouth has. um should it get that uh twothirds majority then it also needs to
um on May 9th annual election passed by a symbol simple majority so it's uh it it's purely the design phase eventually they would see this as u like a $108 million project but um you know it's a thousand
homes and it would have a hopefully very positive impact not only on quite Bay, but also some of the freshwater uh streams and ponds that are part of that watershed. My source for my latest data on this as a point of interest is something called
Rollcast. And Rollcast is a excuse me a um publication of um Trout Unlimited. And Trout Unlimited is the organization that has been restoring the quashnet river to a viable very productive trout
stream. So they detailed in their latest newsletter about this project um and they went into a lot of details that you know they've been working for 40 years on that watershed and the goal to remove to clean it up which they've done
reroute it so that there are nice pools for breeding of the trout and the sewing will do two things which we've talked about a lot. remove the nitrogen but also the phosphorus that's impacting the the quashnet as a freshwater stream
and some of the ponds in that area that feed into the watershed. So it's kind of a doubleaction project um important and hopefully it'll pass but it's a big bite and MASH has made some tremendous commitments going forward to improve
things. Um the Mashp wakebe project is a small amount of houses but it is primarily to improve a freshwater pond nitrogen and even more importantly the phosphorus. So we'll be interested I will be interested and I'll let you know
how that goes. That's all I got. >> Okay, Ken, uh you want to give us an update on where the Snug Harbor PRB is? the Snug Harbor BRB. We again we've submitted uh Kristen has submitted the uh application to conservation
commission and for review. Originally we were going to meet May 6th for that and I guess it's been moved now to May 13th. So we're still kind of in the holding pattern there. All right. Um I have my name on the next
one. Uh it's it's a short one. Um, it's perch pond, not eel pond. Uh, if you if you got your agenda in front of you, >> but we, as you recall, we got a grant a year or so ago thanks to Kristen's, uh, efforts, uh, as always. And um those are
those we have two two of them and they're both now in place for the season gathering water quality data in Perch Pond which you know as the sewers come into place and get put in place we're going to have some fairly specific baseline you know pre sewer installation
baseline data out of perch pond and then we can keep comparing to it. you know, we anticipate much like we saw uh on Little Pond, improved quality that we'll see improved quality there. Um Ken, back to you of the PRB on Shorewood.
>> So, um I was in communication with both uh Kristen and and uh Matt Sheret about this. I guess April 13th, they completed some sampling. They have a small amount of money to do two samplings this year.
Uh the data only data they really have so far is what they get as they pull the samples uh using a a me an instrument to measure oxygen for example. It still shows anoxia uh in the area where the uh
uh emulsified vegetable oil was added. So that suggests that the that the system's probably still working, but they don't yet have back their their nutrient data. And that was a excuse me >> the the fiveyear dose. >> Yeah.
>> The two-year dose >> or one one year dose >> two it was a two-year initial >> two-year dose two-year dose is still working what five years later >> five six years later. >> Uh the one-year dose uh really didn't even make it through but one year. So
who knows what's going on with that. Part of that clarification is the area that we thought we were capturing with the shore would drive once we got out there, it was a smaller area. So the 2-year dose was based upon more homes than we were actually capturing. So the fact that it should run four to six
years is not completely unexpected, but we're just continuing to see how it works. That's all. Amy, I have you as number two on the agenda or might be Kristen. I don't know which one wants to do this.
>> Hi. Um, so I am going to ask Kristen to do most of the talking. Um, but we um we wanted to give a a brief update on the watershed management planning project. We spoke I spoke at the beginning of
this month about the project and the process overall. Um Kristen has been working Kristen Rathon of ScienceWarses has been working with GHD on um on putting together uh the the initial
plans for each watershed. We wanted to show you one example wershed first. We're starting with um the uh I'll call it the easiest one because it's little pond where the work has already been done. there's a lot of um effort that
goes into um updating the the data and and um and looking at the watershed in the in the in the light of the new information we have. Uh so um Kristen and GHD have done a lot of work on this
just to get us where we are. the um the the little pond. The reason to a reason to show it to you first is to just show you how this data can be presented and as a template for how we would present
this for all of the other ponds in town. Um I'm going to let Kristen do the the presenting because she uh she was doing the work, not me. and you have heard her do very similar presentations over time. Um, I am going to pipe in at one point
about our IIA, how we're thinking about IAS's options. Um, get started. >> That's not my Kristen Roth, ScienceWarses. Um, so like Amy said, we've started to do some of
the detailed work for what's required for wershed planning and we're working watershed by watershed. Um, and just the broad overview what we're doing is we're using more recent water use data. So
2001 through 2004 to essentially update the wastewater loads. So the septic loads for each watershed. We are not updating any of the land use the the assumptions that the MEP made for fertilizers, storm water, any of those.
We're keeping those terms the same. So, we're essentially just updating wastewater to see how that compares from the time of the MEP and TMDL to now to see what the actual nitrogen load reduction targets are and what those implementations have meant.
I'm not going to go into the background of Little Pond like I did with geo boundaries. Um what we're looking at here is pretty much summary table of what a proposed compliance approach would be. So the first line up here is
what the TMDL has as the controllable nitrogen load. Um TMDL is mostly based on the MEP. Sometimes there's differences in them. The TMDL document is the regulatory document. So that's where the numbers are coming from. So in
2008 when the TMDL was established, there was about 7,000 kg of controllable nitrogen load to Little Pond. So that does not include the atmospheric deposition or the benthic flux
with the updated water use data. And this is be this is all the water use whether it's on septic or sewer. Um so 2021 to 2024 we saw about a 200 kilogram increase um in nitrogen loading. So
using that same methodology the water use for all of the parcels that were sewered from Little Pond sewer service area that reduced about 5200 kg. Um there are a couple of existing IAS within that watershed.
So that brings us to our updated remaining attenuated load. So 1,900 kg whereas the target threshold load for the watershed is 1956 and that comes straight out of the TMDL and that
doesn't change. So if you're savvy you can see that we're already there. Um, so other things we've done and or looked at within Little Pond and these are some
of the types of implementations and methods and tools we're going to look at for the different wheds. So in Little Pond, we have a small amount of oyster aquaculture. That's MEES's stuff. Um, it's just oysters about a quarter of an
acre. So there's some potential credit from there. Uh Little Pond, the Woodbrier Golf Course closed after the MEP was conducted. So all the fertilization from that golf course can be counted as a credit. Um I'm going to
hold on the green line. The blue line it comes from Chuck and Marine and Environmental Science, their proposed townwide aquaculture plan of what they think they could do in Little Pond. Um,
and then the last three, we've got our 25% fertilizer credit because we have a fertilizer bylaw. We have 25% storm water credit because we follow our um, Neptis permit. And then atmospheric
deposition is something we haven't considered as a town up to now, but there is um good EPA data that basically says there's been a 41% reduction in atmospheric deposition
in the last 20 years. Um and there are other papers that support that. So we have that listed as um a 40 41% reduction of the deposition that was quoted in the MEP.
So the green line um something we've talked about. Do you want to jump in on this? >> Do you have Well, so why don't you just finish your table there? >> Okay. Um so >> the bottom the bottom >> Yep. >> few lines there. So the bottom we have
again our target threshold which is the same as above and if all of these other alternatives were considered here's where our nitrogen load would be um once all of this is implemented and or if it's all
given credit for um this is kind of what that map looks like. So this is the little pond watershed. All the parcels in blue are sewer service area. The shellfish are all of these dark blue polygons. You can see that they're
primarily focused around the inlet. Um but in this case, they're not even needed to count toward nitrogen credit anyway. Um, so something we've looked at, we're starting to look at as far as IAS is the potential for
having them upstream from freshwater ponds. Um, so Jones Pond, freshwater ponds that already have a USGS watershed delineation. Um, so within Little Pond, Jones Pond, which is this one here, has
its own watershed delineation, subwaterershed delineation through here. So, these couple of parcels right here are upstream from Jones Pond. So, this tiny little one that I don't even know who it is um doesn't have its own
watershed. >> Saul's pond >> is it >> Saul's pond? I think it's a little one there. >> Um so, those are the green parcels that are here. So if those were required a nitrogen reducing septic system at 10 milligrams per liter they would have a
small impact in the nitrogen reduction credit. >> I can just talk about that right now. So um a big part of the watershed management plan overall for the 14 watersheds will be IIA systems in the
watersheds to each of the coastal ponds um that that each of the nitrogen sensitive areas um to our coastal ponds. Um we are this is this is the first one to show you but we we wanted to talk
about um so the way that those IIA areas would be implemented we imagine is through uh ultimately it'd be an approved watershed plan but then it would also be voted by the board of
health. They have an existing now regulation for um that requires uh IIA upgrades in for new construction and you know you are all very familiar with that. So they talked about additional
IIA areas um that that board of health regulation could in the end include um w within these nitrogen sensitive areas. We can um includes the upgradient
properties abudding water above abuing freshwater ponds. Um the that would because because the um estuaries project assumes attenuation of nitrogen going through a freshwater
pond, we would only get 50% or less credit for that nitrogen removal towards TMDL towards meeting the TMDLs for coastal ponds, but um it would be a potential benefit to
the freshwater ponds. Um the advantages of this are I hope obvious. Um you know there is a great deal of interest in the water quality in in freshwater ponds in town. And um while we are implementing this project we
could require you know we could sort of kill two birds with one stone by um requiring those septic systems um septic system IIA upgrades upgrading of of freshwater ponds. The disadvantage is uh potentially that the freshwater ponds
are not regulated right now. There is not a um a uh state limit, you know, like a like a TMDL for the freshwater ponds. So, this is something the town would be doing based on the town's concern for freshwater ponds. Um, we can
also look at either requiring a phosphorus removal technology be included, upgrading of those freshwater ponds, or at least that the in sort of the the way the board of
health has been allocating space for an IIA, we could allocate space or a means of adding phosphorus removal in the future. So, uh, we just wanted to introduce this concept here and and get
some some feedback on it. Uh, it doesn't have to be a part of the, uh, the plans for the coastal ponds. Uh, if I are needed to meet TMDLs, then we can just focus on coastal ponds. Um but if we
require them just universally on the upgradient side of all freshwater ponds, it could be um doing some water quality. It could be achieving some water quality protection for uh freshwater ponds as
well. Um the what one last thing was that Kristen mentioned um watershed delineations. So I don't I personally don't think it is worth spending an enormous amount of time trying to get
the watershed to the coastal ponds perfectly identified and figure out exactly which property contributes the most and all that. We have subwhed delineations from that were prepared by the US United States Geological Survey
within the MEP reports and the TMDLs. show a they show watershed delineations not just for the overall coastal pond but to all of the the subwaterheds um within those. So if it's in a a coastal pond wershed there are subwaterershed uh
delineations for most I guess I didn't realize not for all of the freshwater ponds. So what we do is take the the upgradient side of that delineation and just say all the abuing properties um are are going to be required to to put
in an IIA system. And the suggestion is that that be just for now the abuing properties. The abuing properties um stand to benefit the most from improvements in pond water quality are because of the time of
travel. the have likely have the not likely have the highest impact on the coastal on those freshwater ponds. Um so I I think it's it's an it's a an idea for how to start on uh this concept.
So I want to let I guess I would suggest we let Kristen finish the presentation and we can talk about all of it at the end. >> Okay. Can I ask a question? >> Step to the mic, Doug. Just because it's TV, step to the microphone. Thanks.
>> Can you just clarify for me the uh 1956 and the 1492 which is which is we still have that >> Columbus sailed in 1492. >> Columbus sailed the ocean blue. So the 1956
is where we stand right now after the little pond sewer project and after these couple of IAS that are already in the watershed no >> that's the target 1956 is the target >> 1956 is the target I'm sorry 1909 is
where we stand right now >> remaining target >> that's that's the that's the number we have to get two, not the remaining target. We don't have to get to zero. >> Okay. >> Um, so 1909 is less than 1956. So we're
already below the target. >> The 1492 is these other credits, the the free credits that come because of the fertilizer bylaw, the shellfish that's there, and the atmospheric deposition. These are the al these are the
alternatives that um the state makes you have a contingency plan for if you're relying heavily on these. So if the shellfish get implemented and all of those credits then we're down to 1492.
So well below the target of 1956. So even better. So on the traditional approach saw that we're already there but as I just mentioned for every watershed plan that
is going to rely any part on alternatives the requirement for the wershed permit is to have a traditional backup plan. So the traditional technologies are sewering or the general use approval IAS
and all of those are 19. Um that's the best performance for those. So if you do the math the same way now our oysters are set to zero. The fertilizer, the storm water, and the atmospheric deposition are all zero. And I didn't
even include the proposed shellfish to be included. And with the IAS that were on the map, the performance level goes from 10 to 19 now. So you can see it's an even smaller production. We were already achieving the target, so
it just bumps us a little bit further along. Um, and the plan doesn't change. You just don't see the shellfish boxes down here. So that's kind of what the tables will look like as we go forward. I'm not done yet. Sit down. Um, so something else I
put in here, this is the updated long-term monitoring data from UMass Dartmouth School of Marine Science, School of Marine and Science Technology. Um, I showed a version of this recently,
but I just put in the 2025 data. Um, so you can see we're still moving in the right direction. >> Yeah. the over here. It just makes a stronger statistical trend that we're going the right way.
And then I also included, you know, one of the key metrics is eel grass, the restoration of eelrass. So the DP periodically does aerial eelrass surveys. This is the data that's available through their GIS
um mapping. So it has the different years and this is all color metric analysis. It does not comment or indicate make any indication on the actual health of the eel grass just where it might be present. Um but
you can see 1995 was the first year. Uh but the survey data that's available how it has changed over time. Um 2019 was the year that the last connections were made. So we
wouldn't expect to see any kind of um response in eelrass from sewering yet. And we don't have any more updated data from then. But if you prefer to see that in a graph form, that is what the eel grass area acreage looks like.
>> Thanks. >> Can I just say things going back this um >> start at that end. So, um, this is this is really nice to see the trend going down. Like the the Little
Pond concentration, the concentration of nitrogen in Little Pond at the Sentinel Station was lower again in 2025 than it had been in previous years. Uh, and it is approaching the um the threshold nitrogen concentration. The reason that
um that Kristen is talking about eelgrass is as as you're as you're aware that the the idea is that if you the concept is if you get to a certain nitrogen concentration you will improve the habitat improve the the quality of
of the ecosystem in the in the pond. That is going to be very difficult to measure uh and to confirm over time. And looking at this data shows you how difficult that may be. That these these
this is existing DA for eelgrass uh in a number of different years before the sewer was completed and it varies enormously at least using the the data gathering method that they've been
using. So um we you know we will watch this over time and and see how it looks but this is I it's just sort of a preview of this recovery as gauged by eelgrass is going to be a difficult
thing to do. Certainly recovery as looking at the water the water quality um the nitrogen concentrations is is a much more clear-cut um metric. Um and I
just wanted to reiterate that the reason we're spending the time on this, you know, the Little Pond is is very different from the others in that we've done an enormous amount of work there already and and it's looking like we don't need to do anymore. Um but um this
is the format that we would use for future um for future watersheds as well. >> Tom, >> yeah, I had a question for Amy or perhaps Kristen knows in the little green zone north of the pond there, how
how many residences or how many sources of >> how many parcels are green? Yeah. Are in the green zone. >> There's six. One of those is um >> the atria golf course that's now conservation. >> Yeah.
>> And while that has no nitrogen load, right, >> that's not counted in there because it's based on water use. >> Right. Cuz I was just thinking there wasn't much at all in that patch, >> right? So, but it's it's still identifying which parcels count as direct to butters upstream. >> Yeah.
>> So, >> yeah. No, I see that. I just was trying to figure out if there was going to possibility of any growth or anything there and I don't think so. >> No, I'd say it's 300 committee land. It's pretty protected. >> Yeah. Yeah. I've I've walked I think just about all of that.
>> Okay. Sean Steve >> got four comments or questions. The first one, if you could go to the eelgrass map. This is a really nerdy question in a field I know absolutely nothing about.
I'm hoping that Ken and Tom will jump in and explain it. If you look at those patterns of eelgrass starting in 1995 way back then it was close to the shoreline
and then it suddenly or not so suddenly but in 16 years no six years. six years. >> It it jumps into the center where there was a hole before and it stays there and eventually
at 2015 or 19 gets a little bigger. Is that have anything to do with uh nutrients coming from the shoreline or does anybody know about that? >> Can I just I'm sorry. I'd like to just
say this is I think it has more to do with the methodology than with what's actually going on in the field. They're they're making these maps based on an aerial survey and based on the color of what they see on in the survey of the
water. They're estimating what's what's eelgrass and what's not. So, um, that's that's my my take on it is that if if that's the methodology for the eelgrass, the estimate of where eelgrass is, it's,
you know, it's better than nothing, but it is not. >> So, it's a different kind of eelgrass or the observers had different kinds of color blindness or what? It's not a a a very obvious It's not a clear uh it's not clear where the ill grass
is. They're drawing a line based on what they see from the from the aerial survey. And it's not 100. They could be looking, for example, it could look, they could be calling it eel grass, but it could be another kind of algae growth because it's darker in the aerial survey
than it is um than than the water to either side is. Anyway, I don't want to jump on the biologists who know a lot more, but I just wanted to say that I >> Well, that might be the answer. I mean, but that's a good seg into my next question or more of comment. If there
could be a timeline for all of these estuaries of all the major events, the planning, the implementation and then the measurements and when the contingency plan is required that would help everybody to
look at this intelligently >> financial planners and everybody and I think it should be a required graph in almost every presentation that comes close to this >> and that's part of the planning process of you have to have it's the five-year
phases for your updates and at what point you decide your alternatives may or may not be working if you have to move to the contingency plan. So that will all get planned out over the course of that 20-year permit. >> Okay. But I mean the
>> but we're not there yet. But the the numbers on when the contingency plan goes into effect is not something that you plan. That's a requirement from D. >> It's you. >> Otherwise, we'd choose 150 years from
>> the town sets at what trigger. So if you're monitoring IAS and they're all not making 10 milligram per liter performance because you have to monitor them at what point do you expand that and say okay for 5 years we're not
making the target we thought we were going to with this number of IAS we have to go into another phase so the town needs to decide what those phases are going to be and where those triggers are >> but you agree that some of it comes from
T otherwise the town could if the unless the TE told us we couldn't do it we'd choose 150 years. >> We're going to put together a plan and and it will be presented to this group and then once that is voted by the town
or approved by the town, it'll go to the D and they will approve it or not approve it based in their review. So they've not said anything about what their requirements are on >> no >> how soon you have to meet the standard. >> They want a contingency plan that is
based on conventional technology and they have not told you what the threshold is for for uh employing that. >> I at this point there's only a couple of watershed plans out there and the fiveyear cycles haven't run. So we don't
yet see what D is going to do. But I would characterize it like this. As the plan comes together, people, somebody's going to say, "We're going to sewer this area by this date. We're going to get so many IAS by this date, so many more IAS by this date, so many acres of aquaculture." And on a five-year basis,
somebody's going to come in and say, "Town's got to do this and say, "We thought we'd get 200 IAS in. We only got a hundred. We thought we'd sewer 10 miles. We only sewered eight. We thought we'd have aquaculture in. we'd have this. We'll see how the DP does,
but it's not that we can ask for 150 years or something like that, Steve. We have to be very specific, 5, 10, 15, 20. The DP is going to review the plan and they're going to compare it to other communities and they're going to say, why is Falmouth
so far ahead or so far behind? I mean, if if MASH is going to go appropriate, what' you say, Ed? Say what the big the big plan is? How much? 100 million. >> 100 million. 100 million thousand homes. G is going to look and say Felmouth, why are you doing 500 homes and only putting
50 million in? You know, when when the first stage and I totally agree with what you just said, but I'm moving including that and moving past it to the stage where nature is in charge. We've installed everything on schedule and now
like the graphs that Amy and Kristen showed, you're waiting for the plume of non nitrogen to make its way and you're waiting for the biology to change in the ponds to produce the eelgrass. So that
doesn't happen instantly. So the amount of time that you allow for that is relevant because I if the EP says sorry it has to happen within so many years and it doesn't then it doesn't matter on little
pond because already have met the goal but on the other ones uh where we're counting on the contingent the the specialized removal techniques it matters because we don't want to have
to fall back on the contingency plan. >> You had you had four questions. You've done two. >> Okay. The the last one maybe I only have three. Um I can't count today. Uh this
is the comment. I I hope that the town moves to a policy where they have some financial skin in the game on IAS. Otherwise, I think it they're being treated cavalerely. Oh, we'll put some
IAS here and some IAS there. And for instance, you were mentioning the phosphorus removal uh in an area where because it's in a freshwater pond, the nitrogen is only getting half credit probably for good reason because it is being
it might be better to put the money. I I don't we haven't discussed phosphorous removal techniques, but suppose there are some phosphorus removal techniques that cost a certain amount of money that perhaps is even less expensive than
nitrogen removal and doesn't require that that can be standalone that doesn't have to be an adjunct to a nitrogen removal uh device. It would make more sense for the town as a whole to not
make people put in gratuitous nitrogen removal in places where it's only doing 50% good, but put that same money into phosphor removal. And as as long as the town has no financial skin in the game on IAS, that's not going to be done
rationally. >> Finished. >> Okay. Um I'm I have a couple of I'm gonna I've got this done. Okay. So, um, one comment I'm going to provide is when the the
target number that came out of the MEP, the that that the number 1956 or whatever it is, right? Um, I think we as a community, as the town should treat that as an MEP number. I
don't believe there's any safety factor in that. they did their their whatever. But, you know, Steve sort of alluded to how long does it take for an asteroid to come back. I think it's always good, you know, and I don't know, Amy, if you want to try to
incorporate this to your plans somehow, but incorporate some type of safety factor that that maybe we should be targeting to get to, you know, 80% or 90% of the TMDL rather than just get to the TMDL because it's it's it's just a
number and it it it it may or may not get us to where we go to. That's my first comment. And the second comment I have, I'm not asking you to to comment to that. I'm just asking for to consider, you know, make this a plan. I want this to be a plan for Felmouth,
not a plan for the DP. I want this to be a plan for Felmouth. So when you are concerned about should you or should you not be incorporating pond issues in a watershed, I would say these are watershed, these are felmless watershed
plans for how to create a viable environment for our freshwater and our saltwater ponds. not not bifurcate them or whatever. So to the extent that we are right in a plan, it doesn't have to just meet the minimum
requirements of D. It should be a plan that gets found with to a place where we know our systems are robust, we know our pawns are protected, and we know that the So I I wouldn't I wouldn't try to narrow down what we're trying to do. That that's my my big picture on this
one. Can can I just respond real quick that uh I appreciate that comment. I I just want a clarification though. I think what you said I think gives the opposite impression of of what you intend which is you said that you don't think the
TMDL number that threshold number includes a safety factor and I think you mean the opposite right that the the MEP and TMDL process includes a lot of safety factors and it it it um it's a it's it's very conservative and it's
making us it's making us do quite a bit of of work you're saying maybe don't get all the way to the TMDL No, no. I'm saying if you know we got a little pond here at the bottom there. It shows 1492 against 1956. >> Yep.
>> That's great because we're we've got a plan for this watershed that doesn't just get to the TMDL quote number. It drives it below that number if we do everything that's that that we're going to do, which obviously
makes for a better system. So, I'm just saying you're going to have a couple of challenges as you look at other watersheds getting to the numbers. Don't be afraid to say >> whatever 90% of 1956 might be. I have my calculator with me, but
>> right. So, some of these wersheds like Great Pond and Woit, it's going to take several phases of work and a lot of money. And so we will not be getting to the TMDL for the for Great Pond with
that TMDL number, this threshold number for Great Pond for within the 20-year watershed permit timeline, I don't believe. So we're not going to be getting to that contingency plan for quite a while for Great Pond just because the of the amount of work that
has to be done there. So there will be phases of implementation for for great pond and woy in particular um and that will extend over over a larger time period. >> I'm not being argumentative, but I would
just say that you know to the extent that we focus on meeting a TMDL and that when we get to the TMDL through numerical numbers of measurements, we don't see an improvement in water quality. It's going to be a tough explanation.
Okay. >> Okay, >> you're up, Ed. Sorry, I I picked up um you know, this gets into the crux of what is it? How do you measure success? And there's one measure, the sentinel
station, and that's the state you shall meet that. One of the things that bothers me is, you know, looking at these ponds. Well, the water comes in and it goes out. I I I think some good solid data as what is the nitrogen
concentration in the sound that is feeding and receiving from these ponds is important because if the threshold number we're trying to achieve is unreachable because the water in the sound has more nitrogen than we're
trying to get to. Wow. So, I think we need that data. >> We do have that. So the water in the sound is less than.3 milligrams per liter. >> Okay. >> And there is an awful lot of data on on the the water quality and sound. >> I know there seemed to have been some debate on what that concentration was as
the outfall studies were being made. So okay. So it is feasible. The other thing is the measures of success are very limited. the thresh the sentinel station and some vague idea of eag eelgrass
which is not well defined and hard to measure unless you again go down with a submersible and cameras like they did out for the outfall studies um other measures that should be considered and I
think show health of the estuary and that's what we're trying to get to not just some magic number that came up from the MEP study But what's healthy? And Little Pond is a great case in point. >> Water. >> You wanted to
>> No, go ahead. >> Oh, okay. I thought you wanted to >> I thought you were done. >> No, no, no. I You know me, I rammed the lawn. You know, um about four, six, four to six weeks ago, I was walking the bike path by Eel Pond where APCC wants to
replace the culvert, and there was huge mass of algae six weeks ago. And I thought, "Oh my god, when I walk by Little Pond, it's going to be covered because there's an outbreak around town." It was clean. Little Pond had nothing. Zero. Even in
the little coes. And I thought, "This is incredible." Because usually if it was going on in Eel Pond over on the bike path, Little Pond was in trouble, too. It's gone. The mats that used to cover the pond several times a year, I haven't seen. The water's clear. You can stand
on the bridge at the outflow and see the water coming in and when it comes back out, it's crystal clear. It's the same level of clarity. The plant life, the fish, the shellfish are back. People are swimming in the pond. Yet, none of that counts because those aren't measured.
So, I think, you know, we we should have even if the state doesn't, what's the pre-existing condition before we start our remediation? And that's what's going on in Perch Pond with the data Steve mentioned and the grant that Kristen and Ken were working on and got so that
we're measuring what it is now. So we can see what it is. We can look at what is the clarity. Are there shellfish? Are there any fish? Are there fish kills? None of that is in the MEP thing. But if you look at the Truro plan, which they have submitted, and
it's one of the very few that have submitted and is under review, and I think the public comment period ends May 8th, it's going to be very interesting to see what the D says about the Truro wastewater plan for their estuaries because some of their estuaries don't
have TMDLs and yet they're making steps to address that. So stay tuned. This whole process is evolving, but I think it's important that we look at overall health measures beyond eel grass and a nitrogen at a sentinel station.
>> So, the state does have guidance for water quality standards. Um, and that's what designates or allows waterheds and estuaries to get on the integrated list of waters. So the 303D list, there are
defined uses for each of the waterheds, water bodies, whether it's shellfish, recreation, all of these things. All of Falmouth's coastal ponds, uh, all of the NSAs are classified as class SA, surface
waters, so the highest class. So for things like chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen, there are metrics in there that says that use is being maintained. So for instance, chlorophyll levels have to consistently be below five micrograms
per liter. Um, dissolved oxygen, you can only have so many anoxic events in certain periods. So there's whole criteria there and SMASS monitors those criteria when they do their grab
samples. Buzzards Bay Coalition does as well. So we have a lot of data sets on these other parameters. So the end goal besides overarching it's you want eel grass in the habitat to come back. If there's no eel grass there it's your benthic
communities but the end goal is to get off of the impaired water list and that's a process through the state through that 303D list. Um and there's all kinds of data submission for that to back up
everything that you just said. Ken. >> Um, so the I I completely agree with Amy on the fact that the eelgrass metric is pretty uh challenging to meet.
>> I don't think it's necessarily measurement error. I I think there are a lot of factors that affect the success of eel grass. physical disturbance. Uh predation, it turns out predation by uh in by green crabs is a big factor. Uh
people have tried in West Felmouth Harbor to recolonize portions of the harbor and the green crabs destroy the shoots before they can take hold. Um climate change, temperature tolerance.
Uh so you know certainly the data you've showed from the uh on total nitrogen at the Sentinel station uh is in indicating that there's a response there and the data we've
collected on groundwater showed an even earlier response in terms of reductions in the in the inputs. Uh and that's kind of what you would expect. The inputs would go down. There'd be some benthic recycling. Uh so maybe you wouldn't see the reductions in
the surface water right away but over time they would take hold. Uh and what it's looking like uh based on on that uh total nitrogen data is that we would reach the threshold within the next what three 3 to 5 years I would say. So from
the time we started sewing 2017 or so everything was online uh to maybe 27 28 let's see maybe 29 maybe a dozen years uh is sort of the recovery period for the little pond system to meet that
threshold. Is that you think that's a reasonable uh conclusion >> based on what we're seeing? Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh the other thing that I was very gratified by when we made our groundwater measurements
and then looked at okay here's the concentration in the groundwater and if the recharge is you know roughly what we think it is multiply that number times the concentration to get the inputs the
loading estimates agreed pretty well with the MEP modeling estimates based on land use. So it was two separate totally independent ways of getting loading and they agreed. Um
uh the only thing that that you mentioned that I'm a little concerned about was the possibility of doing a more extensive um oyster aquaculture at the southern end of the pond because that's exactly where
all of that eelgrass is currently flourishing. And I think the again disturbance shading by cages uh those might be detrimental to those eelgrass beds and I'm not sure that the additional
nitrogen removal is going to you know be important enough to jeopardize the health of the grass beds. >> So the shellfish surveys that MEES did wasn't only for nitrogen. Um that was
also for cohogs for commercial guys, private, recreational. He was identifying areas where it could be feasible. So a couple of years ago he came and made the presentation which had all of the polygons which they found
where um there could be areas suitable whether it be bottom cages, floating oyster gear, scolops. Um and they have basically a rubric for different factors whether it's going to
support you know municipal private nitrogen reduction. So where are the priorities for that and as they move further they haven't begun permitting yet you know I'm sure all of that input makes a difference. So um but these were
just the areas that were identified >> right but that's a very significant area. In fact, I would say it covers more than half the existing eelgrass bed there. And if you've got people tromping out there, collecting shellfish, uh, putting in cages, etc., I think that's
going to have a negative effect. I mean, one of the reasons I think the illgrass is doing as well as it is in Little Pond is there's no boats. So, there's no propellers, no prop wash, nothing churning up the sediment, >> no anchors, >> no anchors.
Um but but we see phenomenal growth and I mean a couple of years ago there were something like 40 swans in the pond grazing on that eel grass. They were having an impact for sure. >> Okay. >> Yep. Quick question.
>> Go ahead, Steve. >> Um what is your plan to finish the plans? But by what date by what date will you have the last of them to this stage?
>> When they get done, end of the year. >> This the watershed. >> That's the hope. >> The the watershed management plan uh is is the the schedule for that project is to complete it this year. So we will
>> You mean 2026, >> correct? >> Oh, I somebody said it was this summer. >> No, >> no, it's always been end of the year. >> It's this year. >> I'm glad I asked. >> Right. Um I'm going to let let the audience if they have comments or questions on the for on the I'd like
people to stay on the presentation and not diverge into their own little issues. Go ahead, Matt. Kristen, can you go back to the map and then show the the different sections? So, those areas in the blue, are those
um a true representation of every parcel that was sewered? And um so, how how did they how was how were those parcels selected to be sewered? Because
on that map you have like some parcels like it's half a parcel. It's not a full parcel but you sew it. So that that was sewered. >> Huh. >> So if you look on the map here like this parcel here is like cut in half. >> So they we sewered that section
>> because it was lower waterershed to little pond. >> Yeah. >> So the the goal was to uh to sewer everything that was in the lower watershed to little pond and meet the TMDL. Matt, I think it's just a case of of the way the mapping's created. The parcel is in the sewer area. The parcel
may extend over the watershed. >> Well, the my my question is is I wanted to know that for Clar for to So >> the Austria parcel is in this watershed >> and that's a large nitrogen contributor
to that watershed. Do they have a wastewater discharge permit? Yes, they have a groundwater discharge permit for a rock system that's located. >> And why isn't that included in in this permit in her presentation? Those numbers should be included in that. It's
in that it's in this watershed. So, >> so the actual atria woodbri >> yeah there their nitrogen that's removed from this wershed should be in this presentation >> parcel and the MEP designated which wershed it actually by the MEP model
loads into inner harbor >> y >> and what about kameset in >> uh inner harbor >> because that's that's also in here >> inner har that's also inner harbor >> inner harbor >> but do they have a wastewater discharge permit >> kunameset does not atria does they have
So they're they're contributing nitrogen to this to this wershed. >> No, not to this wershed to the inner harbor. >> Well, kunames contributing in that wershed. >> No, not this wershed. The little pond watershed does not receive the septic
effluent from atria or the kunames in they do not. The the the effluent from both of those facilities flows to inner harbor. He's she's showing a small a tiny percentage of a lot that is or a small
percentage of a lot that's >> in this wershed >> right >> it's accounted what Chris what Kristen said is it's accounted for overall >> right >> but it's not accounted for in this system because most of the parcel is in
inner harbor >> well that's asked that question >> do you look at the actual >> I asked my bigger question was how do you decide the parcel >> decided >> the decided >> and we're following the MEP designation.
So if they said atrios parcel loaded into inner harbor when they developed the TMDL that's what we're following. So we're keeping our removals and updates consistent between wersheds for those split parcels. >> But I'm confused because the Morris pawn
parcel is is obviously our public school. You can't tell me that that that parcel is discharging into this whed when it's on the edge of the other watershed. >> So that might not actually be contributing to Little Pond. It's just
showing up in the outline and it's a sewer parcel. So that might not be counting in that total. I'd have to look at the actual parcel. All I'm showing here is where the watershed line is and what parcels are physically sewered.
So because if the sewer ran in front of it, it had to connect. >> So So the adjoining water shed, we would have the atria and the cot messed in included in that. >> Okay, that was my question. Thank you.
>> Yep. If they look at the actual location of each field below the mang precinct 8. At what point beside a meeting like this will the public have any influence or participation in the creation of these
plans? >> Uh there are there will be public there will be public meetings. This is a um there will be public meetings as part of this process. >> We don't have a schedule right now because we don't have the the um materials yet, but there will certainly
be public input solicited on all of these plans. >> So my concern is that usually these public meetings happen when most of the plans are done. I would like to see public input when the plan is being developed so we can have an input on the
development of the plan not at the end where there's a hearing we get two minutes to talk about it and that's it and that's our experience for many of these big projects and we would like to have an input right this minute as you defi you say you're here now just
explain to the public this is where we are get input and then the next phase maybe months later not in September when you're almost it just doesn't help the transparency for the public. That's my my request and hope that that
will happen with this project. >> Okay. I'll just say we you're here now and these meetings are public and these are announced on the water quality as a part of the water quality agenda. Not
all of the public wants to attend every a meeting at every stage. So we're trying to strike a balance between offering the public information when we have a draft available that is that is that we have completed and is ready for
feedback. Uh versus inviting peop most of the public is not going to want to attend a meeting every month until this is done. >> But some of the public would >> and they can come to these meetings. No, this is not good enough for that. It
should be in a school, should be in a place where people feel comfortable, where they feel like it's their community. And I think that's really, really important. And I'm really concerned that we will get it again. We'll hear it when you have your draft together. I want to be part of making
that plan. And I know a lot of other people want to do that, too. And that might not be thousands but anybody who's at least accepted in that role for the public because right now it's just I feel it's behind closed doors whatever happens then it then we get this but
this is not what I call generally a public meeting that's not what I refer to >> Hildy can I ask you to be more specific so we are scheduled to regularly get updates on the watershed planning >> here
>> with water quality as a public forum. From what you just heard about Little Pond, what do you feel is not included? It's not that the presentation doesn't include everything. It's how the how the public feels that they're part of the
it's presented. So now you're already making a draft, but we are not part of putting our inputs into that draft at all. >> I I I'm challenging you here. This is a public forum. We brought the first watershed that we've that the
consultants have worked on and presented where they're at to solicit public input on this watershed and this plan. You're saying you want to be able to provide input to the plan and it's in front of
you now. Lil Pond wershed is in front of you tonight. If you think there is something not in this watershed plan that the consultant and the town should be dealing with, tell us. Tell us cuz because we're we're going to come back with the next one and the next
we're going to have 14 of these. >> I know. >> Okay. They're not we're I I >> I see it. >> I take I take I take a little bit of offense. Do you think that things are being done in the dark? People go off and work on something and then they bring it to this meeting to make a presentation. This is the first one we
have. It's a presentation of the little pond watershed. >> You're say you're saying you're saying that this is not acceptable. >> You're saying this is not acceptable and I want to know why is this not acceptable? What should we be doing with the little shed watershed plan to make
it acceptable for the public? >> This is the first time I this is kind of what I see now. So now I have to do my homework and then kind of think it all through. But would be nice if any of your meetings people could sit in there and kind of understand how you make your plan, what is included in the plan, at
what point. >> So, so you're asking to go sit in Kristen's living room while she's on a computer putting together the watershed plans. That's what you're asking for. You're asking for you're asking for the public to be available. Kristen's making these things up. She's been working on them for two years. I I I I really I
feel we've been very public about this all the way along. And you're telling me we're not being public? We're not including the public. And I'm asking you what about this plan? You know, should should should I should I should we get a sign board put up on like Gford Street that says water quality management
committee is going to talk about little pond watershed plant? >> What what should we be doing? >> Well, right now that was a lot of information for me to digest and respond to and come up with say, "Oh, you should be doing that. That's impossible for me
to do." So I thought if we had a little bit more um >> okay open discuss. >> So the next the next the next one we get we will not come to this public meeting. Um I guess I will send it to everybody that's on
the there's probably like 50 names on the distribution list for this water quality management committee. You get the agenda. >> Oh yeah. >> So what you're asking is that we send this out to you. >> How how many weeks ahead of time do you need it? >> Right. How many weeks ahead of time? >> I'm not trying to accommodate you.
>> I'm not trying to make you upset. No, I'm not upset. I'm trying to accommodate you. I'm trying to accommodate. >> How many weeks How many weeks ahead of time would you have liked to have seen this? >> I would like to be part of it. And so I'm just asking you to right now if you
ask anybody on the street or anybody what's going on with the watershed plan, they have no clue. So I would like to have a better way to have more people involved in the planning part and I mean
now I'm learning things but I didn't know it earlier and it's a lot of information. So I'm just asking for more transparency and more have a meeting in a in a school and tell people we are working on these plans right now and we are including
this much PRB and this much acreage and have people be able to respond to it and think about right now I can talk to many many people nobody has a clue what's going on and I would wish there was a way to make that better. Okay,
Earl. >> I got a question. I would like to answer the question you asked for Hilda because I can answer that question. >> You got you got to go to the microphone. >> Um, so you asked Hilda, in what way did
is the public not being included? Um, can you tell me this this this green line that that has been added? because I've been I've been through the this permitting process the last two years. This new green line and this new policy
of of um doing IIA septic systems north of the ponds. When was that discussed? >> That was brought up tonight for consideration as as as a discussion item >> and we and and you've given some feedback and we've and we're listening
to you. Um, also was the was the freshwater ponds committee and the board of health involved in or at least notified of this idea to get their input because this does include the freshwater ponds and rivers and with the board of
health decision to be involved in water quality. They would also have to you'd have to have a joint meeting of the board of health water quality management committee and the freshwater committee. So this new >> this new this new tactic can be publicly
discussed because the public might say Matt Matt Matt right here Matt Matt Matt I agree with I agree with you. We will not bring another watershed plan forward without scheduling it as a joint meeting of the board of health and the pond committee and this committee. We will make sure that the information is
available. How many weeks ahead of time do you want it? You didn't give me an answer. Three weeks, four weeks, two months? We we can we can we can issue the next watershed plan out to people that are on the distribution list and then arrange a meeting of of a massive meeting of the entire three committees
that have have interaction on it. We can do that if that's what people would like if that's what you're asking for. >> So, so you asked you specific question Hilda and myself are not trying to be confrontational. We are just put we're just posing our view about that a new
policy is being presented tonight that has had no public comment and no comment from the freshwater committee and no comment comment from the board of health if this is even the board of health and the freshwater committee might say let's do all the parcels that touch a pond.
I'm I'm I got I'm going to I'm going to call I'm not going to argue with you. I'm call I'm calling on George, but I'm also going to point out that we have a a guest here who's traveled for agenda item three. Um we're not we're we're just I want to get move him up and get
him to speak. Dr. >> George Topoulos at Precinct 3 and also on the board of health and uh I report with some sadness that I've been asked to come to all of these meetings by the board of health. Um
>> can I bring a bucket of crocodile tears, George? And >> and George, we have somebody from our committee that comes to your committee and there's somebody from the pond committee that comes here but apparently apparently it's a good idea. I just wish we need to have the entire committees here.
>> Yeah. No, I I agree. I agree. Um and I think a thing that is different about this that maybe could this has already been implemented. I think this is the only one that's already been implemented of any and so this is a report not on
what should we do. It's what did we do what 10 years ago and how's it going. So I don't have any problem with that. But I do have a couple of questions. if on the the slide with the graphs. Yeah. And I don't know if this is what
Steve Leighton was referring to before, but it would be great if on these graphs there were two other lines. how many um parcels, households, whatever have actually connected to the
sewer at different points in time and how many IAS have gone in at different points in time. And that would help to think about uh >> that's a good idea, George, and it's yours. It's not what I was thinking.
>> Okay. Um and the other thing uh um are there other localities where from which good estimates can be made of the time
constant for changes in the actual water and the and the fish and the eelgrass after things have h sewers or IAS have been done. The best example I can give you is Boston Harbor in 1999. They cut off all
of the discharges to the inner harbor and within 15 years Boston Harbor was fundamentally cleaned up. >> Yeah. >> So it's it's I I'll defer to Ken, but it's a it's a it's an 8 to 15 year cycle, >> but that's fundamentally different
because that was a direct discharge there. You're not talking about there was no groundwater component. >> But it's a bad example, Steve. I'm sorry I've run up. Um and and the other thing was this the little pond sewers were mostly connected in 2017. Is that
correct? >> 19 >> 19 >> 16 to 2018. All of them went >> right. >> Yeah. >> And they started in 16. Thanks. >> I can show these. >> Yeah. There there's graph show as I speak. >> Okay.
>> The response for ponds is going to be pond specific. All the ponds are different. They have different flushing rates, different amounts of groundwater coming in. They're all going to be different. >> And different size waterheds with different travel times. Absolutely. >> And I I want to intro I want to get a
motion to go to agenda item three. So move four. >> Okay. All those in favor? Somebody saying I >> I >> No, I I I'm sorry. Um four. Number four. I wanted to jump to sorry not jump to number four because we have Bruce we have Bruce who's traveled all the way here
>> to pres present a financial tool and I want to want to make sure he gets on and Maggie I I hopefully we have a little bit of time at the end and you can provide a little summary on the caution. Thank you. >> Let's see if this is going to come up
the way we want it. >> You should introduce this guy. >> Yeah, I'm going to see that. >> Yeah. Bruce, you want to give a little bit of your CV? So, we we I mean, some of us know you, but not all of us. >> Sure. But first of all, thank you very much for providing the opportunity for a
conversation about something we've been working on for a while. >> Um, I'm Bruce Walden. Bruce, >> an engineer. >> Bruce, could I interrupt for a minute? >> Stay close to the mic. >> Got it. Um, I'm a third generation cape owner in the
West Hyannisport, Centerville area. I live in needm and um my career started with IBM doing system sales when the world was going from centralized to decentralized. So there's some parallels
that might that I find coming up here. Uh then I got into executive recruiting and um there was an EPA lady who used to sell with me at IBM who uh developed the concept of uh water technology clusters
and put one successfully into Cincinnati a whole ecosystem of labs financing engineers whatever vendors and that she was told okay now it's time to go fix the water quality problems on Cape Cod Buzzards Bay and Naraganset Okay. She uh
moved to Needm. We reacquainted and commuted into the city together for a few years. And I realized that uh I want my kids to have good water and we're not in the Centerville water shed,
but we're very close to it. Um, and I got involved with her efforts and and created an organization called the New England Water Innovation Network, which is to try and get innovative companies, particularly small companies, into the water industry to help solve problems on
the basis that more cement wasn't going to fix it. And uh we ended up losing some funding uh a number of years ago and merged into NEWIA, the New England Water Environment Association, which is the wastewater
professional association uh for all of New England. And we started expanding uh into well we had expanded into Long Island area because they have the exact same problems that we have. They have 310,000
cess poolools on Long Island. They were late in starting. They have a very different uh governance structure. They have a very strong county. Cape Cod has home rule which makes things a lot more
complicated. We have 15 different decision processes that we have to to to manage through. In any event, um I had written an article trying to get my arms around what was going on with the new technology uh of nitrogen removing septic systems
and uh caught EPA's attention. I needed a place to post it. Uh NEIA kindly said, "Why don't you put it up on our website?" and we were then made into a task force to try and help accelerate into the market a new generation of
nitrogen removing septic systems. Uh we now have a website. I've got cards. Anybody wants to get on it. We have over 80 links of stuff that we've done and stuff that other people have done. And we look at it as a self-education website. Um
that's my background. I'm I'm a retired executive recruiter. Uh turns out that my mailing list is about 500 strong. So recruiting actually helped train me to to be somewhat effective in this uh in this space. But I'm not an engineer. Uh
I look at things more from the financial side where I have some experience in training. Um so is that enough context or more than enough perhaps? But again, thank you for um uh inviting me here. So
the question that two or three years ago uh our task force which now includes about 40 people including the half a dozen vendors that are looking at this marketplace to try and get into it perhaps uh said the biggest problem we have is there's no good information
about cost data particularly as comparing nitrogen removing septic systems which I'm going to call NRS to sewer and Um it took me about eight or nine months to go through a process uh
primarily based on data from Barnstable which has a very good website. I'm I'm a resident there. I got to know some of the some of the folks and I put together a a cost comparison and we'll see a little bit of that in this presentation
to say how do we think about this because there are going to be different mixes in different towns. Barnstable started out saying we're going to do it all by sewing and if we can prove that these NRS work then we'll go back and get credit later. I'm very heartened to
see Falmouth is embracing the new technology uh more quickly as part of the plan and uh taking a page out of the IBM world back when we were looking at going from
mainframes to dis you know personal computers and and mini computers the key um GE water which was one of The top guys there at the time said, "Look, we don't know which is going to be the right
solution for GE water. We've got to invest in a bunch of different technologies and think about various technologies in a portfolio mindset because in 10 years what we think now is going to be the winner may may not be the best solution.
So there's there I think they're real parallels between how you think about technology in the water world as well as uh in the computer world. So the question really is you know go back to 2015 how much is this going to cost and
what are the various mixes that we might think about and NRS and and sewing. I've never seen a model that includes both inflation and financing. So this is breaking some new ground there. Um and
while it was originally designed for towns to um uh study, I'm finding that the audience for this is a little broader than that. I'll come to that in a minute. But uh based on an original presentation I made
to for instance to to Barnesville, I said, "Well, we do everything by watershed." So, we put in a watershed capability uh line item on the on the on the model and it's uh the audiences originally focused on towns. I'm waiting
to schedule a time a meeting to show this to uh Gary Moran and others interested at at DP. Um you got the funding agencies. There's some curve balls that have been thrown out in the market. Wellfleet got a hybrid plan approved for SRF funding and then two
years later they pulled the SRF funding and said no you can't no you got to go over here to get the money and this doesn't come with forgiveness. So that put a whole monkey wrench in that plan. Um I think that the what is
it? The Cape Islands um border protection fund >> Capen Island trust fund >> trust fund could be could find this useful. When you look at the numbers in total I don't think there's enough money in the
state or in the EPA to solve the problem. Companies like Black Rockck are now looking at water infrastructure investing as a $600 billion dollar opportunity. We're going to have to get in front of audiences like that to
ultimately solve the financing problems we've got. Um that's the public private partnership concept there. The other thing is nobody's ever done a market study that says how big is this market for the vendors. Uh we'll talk
about it later, but except for Clean Too and and Lombardo, nobody's putting any investment into into Massachusetts because it takes over a million dollars and 10 years to get a a new technology permitted. So they're all driving to Long Island. They started
behind us. They now have 7,400 NRS installed. And to a question earlier this evening, I asked Walt Dwittiak who's now with Stonybrook and had been the chief engineer in the health department down there in Suffach County
with that number installed out of 300 plus thousand cesspools. Are you seeing anything or when do you expect to see something? Said we're we're really probably talking 20 to 30 years before we're really going to see significant results. So, the fact that
some things have have already shown here, I think is great, but it's there's going to be a lot of faith and and uh time goes by before it's taken 50 years to get here. It's it's going to take a long time to get out of the problem. Um,
when I look at the problem, I think of four key drivers. There's performance, cost, they're in blue because that's what this model really focuses on. But it's just as important to think about time value and location value. Time to travel has been discussed a little bit
tonight. Um, you know, where do you put it to have the most impact the quickest and those are the softer perhaps issues that go along with what is the best technology or the right technology for a particular setting.
We're focused on performance and cost here. And when we started putting this together, by the way, the background here is the nature conservancy, which funded the RME at NASTC with its first $100,000
what, two, three years ago, um, felt that the best way they could support what was going on was to help the towns do their financial planning because there's going to be a lot of money that needs to be raised. We started looking at it
granularly about who's paying for what and it just gets into a hairball very fast. So in my study two years ago and in this model we're really looking at what's total cost. Who pays for what is
a political discussion. We're not going to go into the politics. We're just going to try and identify the full ball of wax. And the approach that excuse me that we've been taking is to look at load and load reduction and starting with the housing stock in any given geography. And you'll see that as we we
go. I'll I'm introducing the model. I will shift and show you an actual run through of the model, but it's pretty pretty dense and not good for presentation. Um disclaimers. The Nature Conservancy
asked me to make sure that everybody knows this is still in beta level, which means we think we've got something that's usable. There's documentation, there's proof of concept stuff that still is being done. We're still tweaking it, pressure testing it to find
where, make sure it's doing the right things. And it is a high level tool. It is not a a detailed budgeting tool. Um I I like to talk about things being precisely wrong but generally right.
That's our objective. Scott Horesley who I think's addressed this in the past. This this group um quotes other folks saying all models are wrong. Some are useful. Hopefully this may be uh useful. Getting to the variables of the the
model. Um, in the dark blue are the numbers that I'm going to show you when I demonstrate it. But from a project timeline, 20 years lines up with the new regs. Um, the D published two years ago.
Financing looking at things generally over 30 years. Cost of capital, this is a limitation of release one of the model at least both town and homeowners are treated the same in terms of uh, financing costs. uh inflation. You know,
every one of these variables, people have different perspectives and we'll debate. The whole point is let's create an environment where you can pick whatever you feel comfortable with and then see what the what it tells you at the end of the day. Um, for instance,
discount rate of Wellfleet just did an 80-year peer review of the work that GHD and Scott Horsesley had done for their hybrid plan centralized clusters and and NRS and uh they used a 3% discount rate.
So, choose your poison. Um and by the way that found out that contrary to some uh questions in ether and and and comments in the ether with that approach and it's
probably this tightly done and as comprehensive approach as anybody's going to need to do. EIA and NRS still are cheaper than sewering over the course. They don't do everything that sewing does but they don't create some of the problems that sewing does. So,
but it's a viable economic approach. >> Looking back over the last decade, the the overarching comment I've heard is that the total cape needs to reduce its load by about 55%. So, that's what we're using uh you
know for demonstrating the model. from a performance perspective. Um, influent I've I've used multiple numbers, but I most the number of towns that I've seen seem to look at 130 GPD, which is less
than you might expect, but you have to take account of seasonality and I think that's the prime driver for that. Um, and if I'm wrong, I know somebody will correct me. uh concentration the 40 milligrams I used was from Brian
Bombgard's suggestion um taking the 26.25 25 which is at the edge of the property. uh and moving that back up to what's coming out of the house 30 35% uh in recent stuff I've seen I think including
from Falmouth 35 might be a better number but Brian said why don't you use 40 so that's what I've I've got here and in in terms of sewer and wastewater treatment plant effluent most are operating today in the six to 10 range as I understand it but
investments are being made to drive it to three and >> benchmark Felmouth, right? Felmouth is three or less. >> Great. I know Barnstable is looking at something like $ 109 million to get to three. So that's our target for
comparative purposes and EIA or NR affluent the regs now are targeting 10. I know that vendors that are chasing this um you know they don't have all that m
that D wants yet in terms of data but they're looking at five or better um and whether it's clean to directly doing it or other companies putting polishing pots after after their process to get
from 11 or 12. They're looking and there's confidence down in Long Island that at Stonybrook that the market's going to get down in the five or better range. Maybe that's two, three, four years out. Question is how long is it going to take to get permitted at those
levels? Um, but it can have a big impact on what it's going to cost the town to actually implement. Um, the two biggest issues are what is it what do you say it's going to cost
for an NR versus sewing a home? And I spent about nine months putting that cost study together. I've got a copy if anybody wants to see it. It's also posted on our website. Um, but there's some huge assumptions built into that
approach. And so I'm going to just take an aside here and identify at least the buckets that went into coming up with those two numbers. The collection system, waste wastewater treatment plant, the connection to the home and
and soft costs, which can be 35 plus% of construction costs. uh when you when you get through the process we did um and this was all data that was on the Barnstable website and I
reviewed it with uh Mark Mil who was the CFO there um came out a little over $100,000 a home including and this is a big assumption about $50,000 per home for the collection system and that is a
total swag. Um, anecdotally we were hearing numbers from 80 to 120. Um, I would tell you that Barnstable DPW didn't agree with my numbers when I presented that to them. Um, but interestingly, perhaps last
summer I overheard a conversation where they were using the 100,000 number. So, uh, that that makes me feel good. Long Island, um I'm trying to get current numbers from them is somewhere north of 100, maybe 120,
140, but in some parts of Southampton, for instance, the numbers are even higher than that. So, I'll I'm hoping to get more information. I' I've already got the query out to to Long Island for that. An important point and
is is this concept of equitable treatment. Barnstable and we coined a phrase subsidize to equalize. The first point of that is that in order to do a hookup, Barnstable limits the homeowner to about
a $20,000 total cost. It's there's a $10,000 neighborhood infrastructure charge which can be financed through the town and then the homeowner is responsible for connecting the his or her house to the sewer. When
I looked at what it meant in my house, I have to redirect all the soil pipes that came out of the proper side of the house to go straight to the to the sewer when I hopefully get there. But that issue of how much is subsidized, I think is a hugely important question. We'll talk a
little bit more about that. For NRS, there's an extra um bucket. You've got design, permit, equipment, inst and and the installation process. I include a charge for the RME because this is such
a huge challenge for the homeowner to navigate that. They need help. And that was part of the original RME concept that at Mass T that we we uh
helped Mass TC on. uh it's the front end is not part of what they the town seemed to be interested in but I think it's important installation and there again a lot of assumptions in here in Shouil Pond which is I assume you're all
familiar with 60% of the homes that they upgraded could use part of the existing infrastructure they didn't have to do a total replace um and that's what the retrofit number is taking at
weighted average it came out to a little under $50,000 per home. So to keep the numbers simple, we assume 50. Anecdotally, we're hearing, you know, 45 to 65. Uh there's a study that
that Scott did up in in Wealthfleet where they took five bids, 40 to $80,000. Depends on, you know, the market >> will have its own say here. Um, I asked Walter Witty what they're
finding down in Long Island. They're saying in the west side of Suffach County, it's it's he's surprised at how much we came up with the value of our thing. And he said it's in the 30s. I attribute that, and we didn't talk about
it, but I attribute that to just volume pricing um, and a lot going on. We're still at onesies and twzies, and we don't have the infrastructure for installing them. That's part of the challenge. Um, but the key point about equitable treatment is that the homeowner pays the whole
freight. And I think that is if if that's the approach, I think that's a huge risk factor for getting the voters to accept what you're doing. Doesn't have to be I'm pontificating here, forgive me. doesn't have to be dollar for dollar, but if you're not recognizing,
you know, why should he he be limited to 20,000 and I got to pay 50? That's going to be a problem with the voters if it's not addressed. Um, one of the And am I getting to the kind
of level you all are looking for out of this? >> Oh, good. >> Is this useful for you? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. um OM and M operations maintenance and monitoring they
one of the uh comments that's in the ether is that they're cheaper to put in to begin with but they'll overwhelm in cost over the the long haul. And that's where this 80-year present value or net present value study
in in Wellfleet um and it's public. It's it's posted. I can get anybody the the report on it's being modified uh and polished but the the initial report was put out in in February. Um,
going to the study that I did two years ago, it looked like the uh, and here's here's an important point. There's a database about what it costs to or what do the towns charge. The point is that they the database that
everybody goes to talks about what are the bills that are sent out to the public, not what does it cost the town. And looking at the the Barnstable numbers, it looked like uh it it came sewing came out more like $1,100 a year.
Anecdotally, when we did that and talk to people, it was more like 1200 to $1,500 per year. Um and ours, including monitoring or or sampling, seem to come out at about two a little
under $1,000. And we were challenged saying, "Well, that doesn't include replacement costs." So over a 20-year, we did a replacement cost addition. Comes out to 1,200. That is essentially a wash in my view. And it may not be financed so much by the the
town. There'll be some financing, but we just said that's a wash. The com model's complex enough we don't need to go there. Um I got a report yesterday that Long Island without sampling or replacement cost uh it cost them they
find about $500 a year and Barnstable two years ago was charging uh about $460 per year. So that's a whole different set of
conversations. But even with OM&M, if I go back here a minute, you can see that there is some subsidy. If they're charging 460 and it's costing 1,100, there's 600 and change of subsidy
per year to keep the cost to the homeowner at a reasonable level. And those that has to be understood, I think, and and considered. um going to the model there's sort of four steps in executing
the model one is you know what are what geography are we talking about um I'm I've modeled the whole cape to which is more than just the uh nitrogen sensitive areas but that we're using publicly
available data um what is the sewer carry load that you want simple way to ask that question is what percentage of this problem do you want the sewer to solve and you know Barnstable's mindset has been
80%. As I've talked to other people and other venues it's 30 to 50% looks like you're going to be somewhere in the 30 plus percent. Um but that's that's a key variable. Um, we jumped to step four
just because of the way the model is is built. As not all towns know exactly what their wastewater treatment plant capital budget is going to be. We're assuming they don't. I think everybody's been doing stuff, but you can include or
exclude that from the calculations. In the way I've done this demo, it's included in the per home assumption which spreads that cost out over 20 years. That's not realistic, but nor is it realistic to put all the capital
expansion in year zero. So, uh this is where it's it's hopefully close enough. Um and the way the model is built, we iterate the percentage of the number uh the percentage of the home stock that has to be touched by something
in order to achieve the load reduction that is you've called for um the outputs from the model you know how many homes are we going to sew or how many homes are we going to put NRS in what's what's the total cost either just
with inflation or with inflation and financing costs. And that's a scary number. A present value of it. Um cost per kilogram of nitrogen removed. This is actually a a a sliding number when you include financing. I'm still getting
my arms around that. Usually you think of that as a fixed number. It turns out it's it's got some some movement in it. And the two big issues of you know cost per home for sewering and EAS or or NRS. uh you'll see a little sensitivity
analysis to get a quicker picture of that. It also gives you the chance to say, "All right, we're not doing the whole town at once, but we've got a five-year uh you know, uh what is it? Um
adaptive management period. We're going to put in x number of sewers and x number of houses. What would that cost us?" It gives you that capability. Um here's where it gets scary. When you we've all been talking for a decade or
more that the Cape's going to cost four to six billion dollars. You put financing and inflation in it. I have trouble getting it less than $15 billion. And that's why I say none of the towns nor the state nor the EPA are going to
come up with enough money to fix it. Uh and that's >> excuse me, why is the cost 15,000 >> 15 billion? Well, any any finite number other than zero if the sewer load carry is zero
>> because it's all being carried by nitrogen removing septic systems. >> So if you look at the numbers >> Oh, okay. It's just ordering of the columns. I got it now. >> Gotcha. Sorry for that. But if you go from sewers at about a little under
59,000 and change, if sewer is doing everything, you're going to need probably 73,000 probably 20 25% more NRS assuming they operate at 10 milligrams.
Um, so that this slide I think prompts a whole separate discussion about how do we get the state to understand that we're going to need private partner private public partnerships to get this done. >> Come back back. >> What? >> Come back.
>> Sure. >> The line that says sewers, what what are those numbers representing? Those >> the number of homes homes on the whole Cape Cod. >> Yes. that would need to be touched to fix the problem at getting low down. >> That's fine.
>> It's not dollars, it's it's it's units. >> It's it's sewers. Yes. Um just a couple of other sort of side topics. I I mentioned the Wellfleet peer review. Um and there was a hybrid plan.
uh applying the the numbers that they came up with, you might be able to spend save 20 to $40 million by by not doing a sewer only approach. And then that's a net present value.
When I shared this with uh Russ Cleamp who did that peer review, he said, "Yeah, but you got to understand that's before the uh SRF loan forgiveness, but it's also using the worst possible
worstcase assumptions that there no retrofitting for existing septic systems and you're using the 26.25 as your influent number, which hurts the case. So is as conservative as he could
be. Um and the SRF issue is is is of continuing issue to my earlier point about um how are we doing for time? I'll get out of here pretty quick. um infrastructure as a service that this
liquid only thing I know Alex Kimod has addressed this this body and um it's a it's a it's sort of the mini computer equivalent to the personal computer which would be the NR and I
just got another uh you know preliminary report it's basically half the co the collection system the way they're looking at it it's half the cost of a regular sewer system, collection system. So there may be an opportunity for
small, you know, 50, 100, 300 homes to connect. I know Barnstable doesn't like distributed processing, but if you can collect and connect to the sewer line, that may have legs. So, we're going to look at that kind of thing for places
that and this is to me an important thing and and I wrote a note to the ad hoc committee saying you can't just pay attention to what MEP and and D say is your minimum. You got to take care of the town and what the town wants to do.
And right now there's some villages within Barnstable that aren't being paid attention to. And this may be a a way that you know they can connect to the existing sewer quarter of a mile away but take care of a village or a
community. So it's just something adding to the uh to the game that I think may is worth exploring. Um and let's see that that's it for this. So bear with me
for just a second. Are they have I confused you or >> I just have one quick question. When you talk about sewers, are you talking gravity sewers? >> Um, how whatever the mix is, it's it's
remember this is a highle view. >> Um, and that distinction wasn't made. It's just >> generally it's $100,000 a house. Only thing is is that you know the the liquid only system is very similar to what we're actually sort of adopting which is the low pressure system you know so
we're not we have very Amy what of what we're doing right now at 20% is gravity or even less >> um I should have that number but I don't I would say it's less than 40%. Yeah. Maybe maybe 70%. We're doing 70%
low pressure sewers and 30% gravity. >> Mhm. Um, and that's we've seen some real cost savings by using our low pressure systems. >> Here is the model. Um, you can see there are a bunch of uh Wait
a minute. Why isn't that showing? I'm over my head here. >> Well, you've advanced, but it's not showing. Come on. >> You ready to straighten them out, Kristen? >> Maybe. >> We should extend this ranting to Maggie.
>> Yeah, we will. >> Basically, I want to get that to show. >> Okay, let's see. >> Why not? No, not word. Okay. Sorry. If you can help. >> Yeah. It's going to be the picture.
>> Let's get rid of >> Get rid of Yeah. Get rid of the PowerPoint. >> That's not what I'm trying to show though. >> Which one do you want? >> I want >> this. >> Good. There you go. >> Okay, we're there. >> Yep. Oh, then and that other thing keeps
coming back and I don't know how to get rid of it. >> Escape. >> That's Windows 11. It's annoying. >> My apologies. >> We're all in this together.
>> I don't know what that is, Steve. >> All right. Well, that's where I want to be. Let's hope we stay there. >> Okay. Uh workflow start. What you'll see across the bottom of the screen there are yellow
uh uh sheets and red sheets. Uh there are about a dozen separate spreadsheets in this model. The red ones you don't want to touch. That's where all the work is done in the background. You start mcking around in there, you're probably going to break the model. The yellow u
ones are the ones I'm going to really walk you through. You start with the assumptions. um demography and then the total the town to cost calc is the is the primary thing we're going to work with. Uh but
you can also look at projects and >> Bruce I just have to do a procedural thing. How much more time do you think you would like? >> I can do this in five but I understand we're going to have >> it's okay. So um I also want to give this woman back here Maggie a chance to talk one of our things. So is the committee fine with adding a potential
half hour to the this meeting? >> Yes. No. I mean, I have somewhere I'm supposed to be at 7 o'clock. >> Can we do 15 minutes? >> 15 minutes is okay. Great. >> All those in favor of of of extending past 6:30 by 15 minutes.
>> I I Okay. So, move. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Start with town demography. Each town has a number. Um the number n here is number four. The whole cape is number 20. If you can see
that and it talks about the number of houses and the number of houses that are already sewed if that's an interesting or an issue. This is publicly available data. You can if it's yellow as a field you can change it. So you can do
whatever you know makes sense to you. The assumption inputs I went through in the in the uh PowerPoint presentation. The two big ones are the you know cost per house. You should recognize all those numbers
just going down the list. The uh we talked about them in the town cost calc. These are the four steps. First is what's the geography? That's up. You can I'm going to use that. You can follow
me. Um what piece of this problem do you want sewers to fix? Here we've said 50%. We jump to step four. Are we including a separate wastewater treatment plant capital plan? No. Um, and then you pick
the number of the percentage of the home stock that's going to be touched and it calculates cost with inflation, cost with uh inflation and financing. the modeled nitrogen removal target in
in blue here 594 593 is the solution given the inputs you did in steps one through four and it tells you how many homes are going to be touched by each. So where it gets time consuming
come on is if I change this to 43.8% eight% and it only goes to one decimal place and hit enter. The answer turns green. That says this
is the the lowest cost solution that solves the problem based on all your 15 assumptions. Um it also talks a little bit about u cost per kilogram removed
and you can change town you can go by a watershed uh that's number one that's a recent addition um I talked about sensitivity analysis if you take this uh 6.309 309
billion number that translates down here. This is NR costs for every $10,000 increment on the y- axis and this is $10,000 increments on the x axis for sewing
costs. So you can if it's red, it's more expensive than the point solution. If it's white background, it's less expensive. So you can get a pretty quick way to say if I change something, how much has or if I change one of those two
big numbers, how much of an impact does that have on on what it's going to cost? Uh last two slides, it gives you the chance to say um if I if if I'm just doing a project five
years, I'm going to do 20 septic systems a year and 36 sewer connections in a year. how much is it going to cost me based on those inputs. So that that may be as close to tactical as we'd want to get. Um
and then if you don't have a budget yet for your wastewater treatment plant, this is a a way to help build what not only the the capital cost would be, but what would what would m
cost along the way? uh these other things you don't really don't want to get into and that's that's it. Um and I I I'll just say that reiterating this is still in beta mode. I'm looking for
folks who would find this useful to explore with me. So I'm happy to demonstrate it. I'm happy to pull it apart with anybody who would have interest. And thank you very much. I took more time than >> No. I told you I would. No, no, it's all
good. Um, Ken, >> so I guess a couple of things. Yeah, you you touched on the no interest loans and because you have an interest factor in there. >> Yeah. >> And I presume that that reduces the cost. Uh, >> that's a question of who pays for what
and and we're trying to stay away from that. I mean, I know you are leading the charge uh at the state house on getting refundable uh credits and and all of that and that's good, but this we're it's complicated enough as it is.
>> Well, let me ask it this way. Does that uh differentially affect the cost of sewering versus uh versus onsite >> for the town? It it would. Yeah. >> Right. >> Sure. So, uh, and then the, so the
other, I mean, I keep coming back to the fact that we just did a sewer for, uh, the little pond system, which didn't cost $100,000 a house, anything close to it. But on the other hand, we already have a wastewater treatment facility built
>> and that was built, you know, initially in 1987, Opera became operational. So those, you know, those are old dollars that have been sitting there and it's been upgraded along the way at some cost. But, >> uh, >> I think it's really looking at future
upgrade and capacity additions here, not just what's >> I'm not sure how much capacity we we we will need to add to the plant. Maybe Amy can illuminate us on that, but I think we have a fair amount of capacity at the plant currently. The issue is really disposal and for
that we will need to build an outfall, >> right? >> Uh which will be a substantial expense. But uh I I you know when you come up with a number of $100,000 I I feel like you're you're taking into account a lot
of infrastructure that we may already have. >> Yeah. >> In the case of Falmouth and >> maybe not in the case of some of the other towns, >> right? That's I mean this could be if if I took the collection system out of that it'd probably be $50,000. >> Yeah. Well, I think we collection system
is going to be our main expense, right? >> Yeah. >> So, you can use it for whatever. >> Those are the two big expenses, the outfall and the collection system, >> right? >> For us. >> Ed, >> is this available your presentation Bruce and the the beta model to play
with on your website or not yet? >> It's not yet available. Um I am uh I'm happy to to demonstrate it to whoever and and crawl through it. Um I just need to touch base with nature conservancy before saying you can you can have
>> how how about your presentation slides before the actual >> um I I expect to post this to our website. This is available. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Would you would you send it to me because we we put any any presentations we get we post on on our website too. So
>> be glad to. Yeah, >> Steve. >> John. >> No, I liked it. Thank you, Bruce. >> Thank you very much. A >> lot of work on your part to put this together. Thank you. >> All right, we're going to we're going to backtrack here and uh although my name's
on there, Maggie, would you like to kind of give the outline for the reserve at Quashion Valley? >> So, my name is Maggie Muka. I'm from Wquit. I'm also here speaking on behalf of Citizens for the Protection of W. So
this is about a proposed development um called the reserve at Quashion Valley Country Club um proposed to be a project of 25 homes and the site for this development is on a bluff immediately
above the upper quashnet river. We learned about it in CPWB learned about it in mid January and we turned around and organized a letterw writing campaign to the Massachusetts environment environmental protect excuse
me the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office. Uh and there were a number of organizations that also wrote in. there had been an online like Zoom uh consultation
with a with quite a few stakeholders on January 7th that we did not attend. Um and um the public policed January 22nd and uh the basic ask on the
part of the developers was that MEEPA allow them to submit a rollover EIR. Uh MEEPA came back and said no, you're going to have to do a simple EIR. the the the the rollover is a much more
streamlined version. We thought when we heard that that this was some kind of a victory. Um but Trout Unlimited, uh the organization Ed was talking about earlier um said no, that's not good enough. and
they filed an appeal with the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs uh requesting that uh MEPA or the Secretary's Office require a full EIR. As Trout Unlimited said, a simple EIR
basically just works with the con the sort of the constellation of information that has already been submitted where a full EIR would expand the scope of the ER out EIR out to include areas not in
the immediate vicinity of the project. And um we concurred when we read the appeal, which by the way, I have a copy of it. It's very interesting, very well read though, very well written. Um the
um filing made by the developers uh literally does not mention Walkit Bay. It is as if Quashnet River exists in isolation from the Municus River and
Walkway Bay. And in the um filing they said that you know they ticked a box and they said this will have no impact on coastal water quality which we thought was wrong. Um so the position of CPAWB
is that given that Walkway Bay and the Municus River have been designated as areas of critical environmental concern since 1979 and a concurrent designation of the Bay Municas and Quashnet of outstanding
resource waters has existed for the same amount of time. We don't understand how the developers can be permitted to build a development that will send excess nitrogen uh you know through the groundwater to flow downgraded into the quashnet
municus and woy bay you know our feeling is what is the point of the regulations that have been established for ACEC's and OWS anti-derbradation rules that say no additional nitrogen should be uh
added to to an already nitrogen degraded area. What's the point of those regulations if they are simply apparently being swept aside? Um, there's one sentence in the MEEPA decision that we found particularly
problematic. It said while the IA septic systems provide a treatment benefit as compared to standard title 5 systems, the project will still result in additional nitrogen discharges which the
town referencing MASHBY would be responsible for removing elsewhere in the watershed in accordance with the comprehensive wastewater excuse me comprehensive watershed nitrogen management plan. It seems to us that
besides being wrong on the face of it, um this amounts to a cough shifting uh exercise. The developers are permitted to discharge up to 90 milligrams per liter because that's MASHB's current standard on the and in the in the filing
it says 11,000 gallons per day of waste water. Uh but it's the towns that will be responsible for removing that nitrogen elsewhere in the watershed in order to comply with the CWNMP. That leaves the taxpayers of MASHP
holding the bag. It also holds the uh leaves the taxpayers of Falmouth holding the bag because once that nitrogen comes into Waway White Bay, it's 50% Falmouth's problem where the property tax is assessed on these new homes will
go exclusively to the town of Mashby. So considering that there is an intermunicipal agreement between Falmouth and MASHBY, we thought we would bring this to your attention and you know ask what you think Falmouth ought
to do about this. Um that's it. Oh, and I I did want to say that Peter Schilling of Trout Unlimited was hoping to be able to be here this evening. that organization has really taken the lead since the Meepa decision
came down. Um, and that's largely based on the 50 years of work that they have put into restoring the Quashion River. And they've brought the Searun brook trout back to 400%
of its numbers, their numbers in the late 1970s. >> Peter Shing is with Trout Unlimited. Correct. What? >> Peters with Trout Unlimited. >> Trout Unlimited. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. He's the >> No, you put his name out there, but you didn't. >> Yeah. >> Just clarify that the organization that
he's involved. >> Okay. Sorry if I misspoke. >> Okay. Would you is who would we comment to at this point? >> Well, I don't know. The the secretary So, the appeal went into the office of the um to the secretary of the office of
energy and environmental affairs. So that would be one place to write to say you know you understand that Trout Unlimited has filed this appeal and uh you know you also want to um state your whatever your conviction is about this
that you would state that um Trout Unlimited has also asked and I think Cape Cod Commission is doing this but they've asked Cape Cod Commission to designate this as a development of of um regional impact.
>> Um, and I would say that um, you know, supporting that request would also be meaningful. I'm really not sure where at what point this comes back to the town of Mashbby, but I know that that members of the MASHB select board and
conservation commission are very concerned about this. So, it might be, you know, writing to them and say, "We're with you. We don't think this should be allowed." I mean really they they could I think connect I think that the wastewater treatment facility at
Southport in MASHB has capacity so that the wastewater from this project if they insisted on building it um could be piped to the Southport facility. >> Is this a a regular subdivision or is it
a 40B affordable? It's a regular subdivision. And in the filing that they made with um Meepa, they make a big deal out of the fact that this housing will go towards solving the housing crisis in
the town of Mashby. Not a single home is going to be designated as either affordable or attainable. I mean, based on the numbers in the filings, the break even for the developers is $975,000.
So, presumably they're going to want to make some kind of a pro profit. So, presumably the per cost house is north of million dollar. >> How does this differ from I mean there's buildout allowances in all the watershed plans. No one has proposed no more
building on Cape Cod. I I mean I I sympathize with you, but I'm trying to understand I mean would >> well I think there are places that are not cited immediately above uh uh outstanding resource water like the
quashnet where the where where the the cold water fishery is at risk. I mean this is a apparently which is something I didn't know until I got involved in this is a springfed system. >> Yeah. and you go and you build on the bluffs where
>> I'm trying to get at the legal I mean at at the very least it means that MASHP I mean there's some agreement now between MASHP and Falmouth on the percent the amount that each has to remove to to be good to Aquip Bay so this increases the
amount of work that MASHP has to do >> well the Falmouth should at least point that out to Mashby right that's in your interest >> abs I mean yes I'd say anything >> and but then when so it's it's then
MASHP's problem I mean it's dangerous to us as the neighbors but it's in their yard in their property in their town >> but it's also coming into the moon but I mean it means >> so who owned it before it was subdivided
>> uh you know this company purchased the property so there was a former owner of this property and they obtained permit in 1973 that has been exercised has been used for the building of a country club and
for other housing. the company that now owns it. This is what I understand. So I not certain that this is 100% correct, but my understanding is they bought the property $254 acres in the mid 1980s for
$15,000 >> and they're saying that they still need to um make back their original investment. >> Yeah. procedurally um we would have to create some letter or something >> and we would have to get it to the
select board for them to issue it. So, um I will take a stab at drafting something for consideration at our next meeting if we want to pass it on to the select board for action. Okay, >> that would be great. We would appreciate it. and and you know it's also I think
just important for you to know what's >> happening that does impact water that >> okay >> this committee is trying to fix >> just briefly you know the there is a lot of information on the trout unlimited
appeal that they sent which I went through a few weeks ago and the crux of the matter is you know does it make sense to allow a development to add additional nitrogen to a distressed watershed which Felmouth happens to share responsibility for. So what Maggie
had said that the tax revenue from these properties would go to Mashby, but it becomes also a Felmouth problem with no tax revenue associated with it to remove an additional amount of nitrogen. similar to what happened on Sandwich Road project where we got a distressed
watershed and that was a 40B, but you're adding housing that's going to add nitrogen that the town's going to have to remove. >> Do you want to try to write the letter? >> Uh, I'd work with you on it. >> Okay. >> Um, so, you know, I think it's worthwhile for this committee to go on record. >> Yeah. >> Um, going forward and go through the
process and I I can contact the MASHB select board, current chair, hopefully she will continue in that. Where are they on it and what document to whom have they sent or will they send? So, >> okay, >> do some digging on it.
>> Um, we are out of time. Uh, Tom, I will pass the minutes to the next meeting. >> The minutes you have noted here. It says from March, but you mean April 15th, >> the ones that are in the >> agenda work.
Don't spend time discussing which one. Any that need to be discussed, >> right? I was going to move that we table three item agenda items three, five, and six. >> Well, we just did three. >> No, we did do three. >> Oh, we did do three. Yes. Sorry, you're
right. >> Um, >> yeah, we did three. >> Five and six. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Second that. >> Five and six. Yes. >> And And the minutes you're referencing are the April 15th. >> Yeah. You might you might have printed the early you printed the early agenda,
not the revised one. No, I think I got the >> Does it say April 15th? >> Does one you have there say April 15th? >> Yes, it does. >> I realized I made a mistake and I revised it and said send it back out. >> Whatever. They are the April 15th
minutes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we'll carry those over. >> And are you gonna >> How about a vote to >> massage this? Okay. >> Okay. Motion to table. Do we have to vote? >> Yeah. All those in favor of tableabling five and six to to the next meeting. >> Yes.
>> I I >> Okay. All those opposed? Nay. It's unanimous. And a vote motion to >> second. I second it. >> Oh, you seconded it >> for purposes of the minutes. >> I don't know that I'm putting I don't putting the second in a second, Kim. And
I'm going to move adjournment. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you everyone.