WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=ttiMYgkQnEw

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: ttiMYgkQnEw):
- 00:00:32: Meeting Commences: Introductions, Agenda, and Schedule Overview
- 00:01:35: Environmental Updates: MASHPEE Satellite Plant and Falmouth Sewering
- 00:04:33: Falmouth Wastewater Update: Route 28 Construction Details
- 00:06:32: Mashpee Wastewater Initiative: Funding and Watershed Health
- 00:09:53: Snug Harbor PRB and Perch Pond Water Quality Update
- 00:11:17: Shorewood PRB Update and Watershed Management Planning Intro
- 00:14:34: Little Pond Watershed: Nitrogen Load and Implementation Methods
- 00:21:14: Implementing IIA Systems: Upstream Freshwater Ponds Discussion
- 00:26:43: Public Comment: Clarifying Nitrogen Load Numbers
- 00:29:52: Little Pond Long-Term Monitoring Data and Eelgrass Restoration
- 00:33:15: Public Comment: Question on Parcels in Green Zone
- 00:34:52: Public Comment:  Eelgrass Patterns and Timeline for Estuaries
- 00:42:12: Public Comment: Financial Skin in Game on IAS Policy
- 00:43:51: Public Comment: Prioritize Falmouth Water Quality Plans
- 00:47:20: Public Comment: Measures of Success, Sentinel Station, and Health
- 00:52:12: Amy Response to Comment: Data Submission for 303D List
- 00:53:49: Ken Response to Comment: Factors Affecting Eelgrass Success
- 00:59:03: Public Comment: Timeline for Planning Project Completion
- 00:59:54: Public Comment: Parcels, Sewers, and Atria Discussion
- 01:04:16: Public Comment: Influence/Participation in Creation of Plans
- 01:11:58: Public Comment: Transparency, The Green Line Policy
- 01:14:25: George Topoulos Comments and Questions on Graphs
- 01:17:44: Financial Tool Presentation Introduction by Bruce
- 01:28:05: Factors for Financial Tool: Load Reduction and Timeline
- 01:34:37: Cost Comparisons and Averages for Sewers and Septic
- 01:46:17: Financial Projections Discussion - The Scary Numbers
- 01:52:02: Demonstration of Financial Model - Yellow and Red Sheets
- 01:59:36: Ken Questions the No Interest Loans and Local Sewers
- 02:02:14: Ed and Steve Questions about availability of the Model
- 02:02:46: Maggie Introduction and Reserve at Quashion Valley Discussion


Part: 1

1
00:00:32.320 --> 00:00:47.840
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.

2
00:00:47.840 --> 00:01:03.359
>> 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

3
00:01:03.359 --> 00:01:20.000
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

4
00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:35.280
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

5
00:01:35.280 --> 00:01:49.439
um MEPA environmental monitor publication had a decision by the secretary of energy and environmental affairs that uh they did

6
00:01:49.439 --> 00:02:06.960
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

7
00:02:06.960 --> 00:02:22.239
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

8
00:02:22.239 --> 00:02:38.160
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

9
00:02:38.160 --> 00:02:53.280
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

10
00:02:53.280 --> 00:03:11.120
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

11
00:03:11.120 --> 00:03:28.800
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

12
00:03:28.800 --> 00:03:44.720
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

13
00:03:44.720 --> 00:04:01.920
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

14
00:04:01.920 --> 00:04:18.320
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

15
00:04:18.320 --> 00:04:33.120
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

16
00:04:33.120 --> 00:04:52.479
>> 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,

17
00:04:52.479 --> 00:05:08.160
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

18
00:05:08.160 --> 00:05:24.080
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

19
00:05:24.080 --> 00:05:41.520
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

20
00:05:41.520 --> 00:05:56.800
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

21
00:05:56.800 --> 00:06:14.160
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.

22
00:06:14.160 --> 00:06:31.800
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

23
00:06:32.319 --> 00:06:48.560
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

24
00:06:48.560 --> 00:07:04.960
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

25
00:07:04.960 --> 00:07:20.800
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

26
00:07:20.800 --> 00:07:38.800
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

27
00:07:38.800 --> 00:07:56.560
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

28
00:07:56.560 --> 00:08:14.160
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

29
00:08:14.160 --> 00:08:31.120
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

30
00:08:31.120 --> 00:08:48.399
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

31
00:08:48.399 --> 00:09:05.120
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

32
00:09:05.120 --> 00:09:21.279
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

33
00:09:21.279 --> 00:09:37.040
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

34
00:09:37.040 --> 00:09:53.600
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

35
00:09:53.600 --> 00:10:10.480
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

36
00:10:10.480 --> 00:10:27.360
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

37
00:10:27.360 --> 00:10:44.000
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

38
00:10:44.000 --> 00:11:01.519
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

39
00:11:01.519 --> 00:11:17.519
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.

40
00:11:17.519 --> 00:11:32.959
>> 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.

41
00:11:32.959 --> 00:11:50.959
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

42
00:11:50.959 --> 00:12:06.639
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.

43
00:12:06.639 --> 00:12:22.079
>> 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

44
00:12:22.079 --> 00:12:38.560
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

45
00:12:38.560 --> 00:12:53.519
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.

46
00:12:53.519 --> 00:13:10.399
>> 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

47
00:13:10.399 --> 00:13:25.600
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

48
00:13:25.600 --> 00:13:43.040
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

49
00:13:43.040 --> 00:13:59.680
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

50
00:13:59.680 --> 00:14:17.440
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

51
00:14:17.440 --> 00:14:34.079
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

52
00:14:34.079 --> 00:14:59.600
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

53
00:14:59.600 --> 00:15:15.519
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

54
00:15:15.519 --> 00:15:31.920
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.

55
00:15:31.920 --> 00:15:49.040
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.

56
00:15:49.040 --> 00:16:06.720
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

57
00:16:06.720 --> 00:16:25.040
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

58
00:16:25.040 --> 00:16:41.040
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

59
00:16:41.040 --> 00:16:58.399
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

60
00:16:58.399 --> 00:17:15.039
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.

61
00:17:15.039 --> 00:17:30.640
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

62
00:17:30.640 --> 00:17:46.400
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

63
00:17:46.400 --> 00:18:03.760
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

64
00:18:03.760 --> 00:18:21.280
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

65
00:18:21.280 --> 00:18:36.480
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,

66
00:18:36.480 --> 00:18:52.720
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

67
00:18:52.720 --> 00:19:08.480
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

68
00:19:08.480 --> 00:19:23.360
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.

69
00:19:23.360 --> 00:19:39.280
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

70
00:19:39.280 --> 00:19:54.799
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

71
00:19:54.799 --> 00:20:11.200
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

72
00:20:11.200 --> 00:20:28.000
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

73
00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:43.840
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

74
00:20:43.840 --> 00:20:59.280
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

75
00:20:59.280 --> 00:21:14.799
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

76
00:21:14.799 --> 00:21:32.240
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

77
00:21:32.240 --> 00:21:49.360
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

78
00:21:49.360 --> 00:22:05.679
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

79
00:22:05.679 --> 00:22:20.960
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

80
00:22:20.960 --> 00:22:37.919
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

81
00:22:37.919 --> 00:22:53.200
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

82
00:22:53.200 --> 00:23:08.799
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

83
00:23:08.799 --> 00:23:27.360
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

84
00:23:27.360 --> 00:23:44.240
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

85
00:23:44.240 --> 00:24:01.840
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

86
00:24:01.840 --> 00:24:17.520
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

87
00:24:17.520 --> 00:24:32.400
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

88
00:24:32.400 --> 00:24:48.320
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

89
00:24:48.320 --> 00:25:05.840
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

90
00:25:05.840 --> 00:25:22.159
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

91
00:25:22.159 --> 00:25:37.600
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

92
00:25:37.600 --> 00:25:53.120
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

93
00:25:53.120 --> 00:26:09.919
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

94
00:26:09.919 --> 00:26:27.440
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

95
00:26:27.440 --> 00:26:43.279
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.

96
00:26:43.279 --> 00:27:01.919
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.

97
00:27:01.919 --> 00:27:17.919
>> 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

98
00:27:17.919 --> 00:27:35.279
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

99
00:27:35.279 --> 00:27:50.880
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

100
00:27:50.880 --> 00:28:06.080
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

101
00:28:06.080 --> 00:28:22.399
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.

102
00:28:22.399 --> 00:28:45.200
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

103
00:28:45.200 --> 00:28:59.840
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

104
00:28:59.840 --> 00:29:17.200
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

105
00:29:17.200 --> 00:29:34.720
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

106
00:29:34.720 --> 00:29:52.640
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

107
00:29:52.640 --> 00:30:08.000
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,

108
00:30:08.000 --> 00:30:25.840
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.

109
00:30:25.840 --> 00:30:44.320
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

110
00:30:44.320 --> 00:31:00.000
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

111
00:31:00.000 --> 00:31:16.960
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

112
00:31:16.960 --> 00:31:35.480
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.

113
00:31:36.159 --> 00:31:52.240
>> 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

114
00:31:52.240 --> 00:32:08.640
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

115
00:32:08.640 --> 00:32:23.760
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

116
00:32:23.760 --> 00:32:39.840
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

117
00:32:39.840 --> 00:32:55.760
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

118
00:32:55.760 --> 00:33:12.399
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

119
00:33:12.399 --> 00:33:28.880
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

120
00:33:28.880 --> 00:33:45.039
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

121
00:33:45.039 --> 00:34:04.720
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

122
00:34:04.720 --> 00:34:20.480
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.

123
00:34:20.480 --> 00:34:36.720
>> 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.

124
00:34:36.720 --> 00:34:52.639
>> 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.

125
00:34:52.639 --> 00:35:08.560
>> 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.

126
00:35:08.560 --> 00:35:23.760
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

127
00:35:23.760 --> 00:35:39.680
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

128
00:35:39.680 --> 00:35:55.040
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

129
00:35:55.040 --> 00:36:11.280
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

130
00:36:11.280 --> 00:36:28.000
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,

131
00:36:28.000 --> 00:36:44.960
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

132
00:36:44.960 --> 00:37:01.440
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

133
00:37:01.440 --> 00:37:19.280
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

134
00:37:19.280 --> 00:37:36.720
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

135
00:37:36.720 --> 00:37:52.480
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

136
00:37:52.480 --> 00:38:09.520
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

137
00:38:09.520 --> 00:38:24.640
>> 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

138
00:38:24.640 --> 00:38:40.640
>> 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

139
00:38:40.640 --> 00:38:55.280
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

140
00:38:55.280 --> 00:39:13.040
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

141
00:39:13.040 --> 00:39:30.160
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

142
00:39:30.160 --> 00:39:46.560
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

143
00:39:46.560 --> 00:40:04.000
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,

144
00:40:04.000 --> 00:40:20.079
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,

145
00:40:20.079 --> 00:40:35.920
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

146
00:40:35.920 --> 00:40:53.440
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

147
00:40:53.440 --> 00:41:08.880
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

148
00:41:08.880 --> 00:41:24.319
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

149
00:41:24.319 --> 00:41:39.920
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

150
00:41:39.920 --> 00:41:54.319
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

151
00:41:54.319 --> 00:42:12.160
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

152
00:42:12.160 --> 00:42:32.079
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

153
00:42:32.079 --> 00:42:48.560
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

154
00:42:48.560 --> 00:43:05.839
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

155
00:43:05.839 --> 00:43:20.880
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

156
00:43:20.880 --> 00:43:36.319
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

157
00:43:36.319 --> 00:43:51.520
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

158
00:43:51.520 --> 00:44:08.319
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

159
00:44:08.319 --> 00:44:23.839
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

160
00:44:23.839 --> 00:44:38.720
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

161
00:44:38.720 --> 00:44:54.480
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,

162
00:44:54.480 --> 00:45:09.520
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

163
00:45:09.520 --> 00:45:25.839
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

164
00:45:25.839 --> 00:45:41.520
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

165
00:45:41.520 --> 00:45:57.760
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

166
00:45:57.760 --> 00:46:14.000
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

167
00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:30.560
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.

168
00:46:30.560 --> 00:46:46.880
>> 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

169
00:46:46.880 --> 00:47:04.880
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

170
00:47:04.880 --> 00:47:21.119
>> 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

171
00:47:21.119 --> 00:47:35.760
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

172
00:47:35.760 --> 00:47:51.359
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

173
00:47:51.359 --> 00:48:07.520
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.

174
00:48:07.520 --> 00:48:24.160
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

175
00:48:24.160 --> 00:48:40.960
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

176
00:48:40.960 --> 00:48:57.839
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

177
00:48:57.839 --> 00:49:14.960
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

178
00:49:14.960 --> 00:49:31.520
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

179
00:49:31.520 --> 00:49:47.280
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

180
00:49:47.280 --> 00:50:03.520
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

181
00:50:03.520 --> 00:50:17.760
>> 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

182
00:50:17.760 --> 00:50:35.040
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

183
00:50:35.040 --> 00:50:52.079
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

184
00:50:52.079 --> 00:51:09.359
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.

185
00:51:09.359 --> 00:51:25.280
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

186
00:51:25.280 --> 00:51:42.480
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

187
00:51:42.480 --> 00:51:57.440
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

188
00:51:57.440 --> 00:52:12.720
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.

189
00:52:12.720 --> 00:52:29.520
>> 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

190
00:52:29.520 --> 00:52:45.359
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

191
00:52:45.359 --> 00:53:02.079
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

192
00:53:02.079 --> 00:53:17.440
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

193
00:53:17.440 --> 00:53:33.760
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

194
00:53:33.760 --> 00:53:49.280
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

195
00:53:49.280 --> 00:54:07.280
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.

196
00:54:07.280 --> 00:54:24.559
>> 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

197
00:54:24.559 --> 00:54:39.599
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.

198
00:54:39.599 --> 00:54:55.200
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

199
00:54:55.200 --> 00:55:11.520
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

200
00:55:11.520 --> 00:55:29.200
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

201
00:55:29.200 --> 00:55:46.880
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

202
00:55:46.880 --> 00:56:02.799
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

203
00:56:02.799 --> 00:56:17.599
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

204
00:56:17.599 --> 00:56:34.680
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

205
00:56:35.200 --> 00:56:52.480
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

206
00:56:52.480 --> 00:57:08.000
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

207
00:57:08.000 --> 00:57:24.160
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

208
00:57:24.160 --> 00:57:40.640
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

209
00:57:40.640 --> 00:57:56.480
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

210
00:57:56.480 --> 00:58:12.880
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

211
00:58:12.880 --> 00:58:28.480
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

212
00:58:28.480 --> 00:58:45.200
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.

213
00:58:45.200 --> 00:59:03.920
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.

214
00:59:03.920 --> 00:59:18.480
>> 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?

215
00:59:18.480 --> 00:59:36.799
>> 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

216
00:59:36.799 --> 00:59:54.240
>> 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

217
00:59:54.240 --> 01:00:11.599
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

218
01:00:11.599 --> 01:00:28.960
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

219
01:00:28.960 --> 01:00:46.079
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

220
01:00:46.079 --> 01:01:03.920
>> 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

221
01:01:03.920 --> 01:01:19.359
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

222
01:01:19.359 --> 01:01:35.760
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

223
01:01:35.760 --> 01:01:53.599
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

224
01:01:53.599 --> 01:02:08.960
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

225
01:02:08.960 --> 01:02:25.680
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

226
01:02:25.680 --> 01:02:41.760
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

227
01:02:41.760 --> 01:02:57.359
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

228
01:02:57.359 --> 01:03:12.559
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.

229
01:03:12.559 --> 01:03:29.119
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

230
01:03:29.119 --> 01:03:45.280
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

231
01:03:45.280 --> 01:04:01.359
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.

232
01:04:01.359 --> 01:04:16.640
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.

233
01:04:16.640 --> 01:04:38.400
>> 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

234
01:04:38.400 --> 01:04:57.680
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

235
01:04:57.680 --> 01:05:14.160
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

236
01:05:14.160 --> 01:05:29.280
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

237
01:05:29.280 --> 01:05:44.240
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

238
01:05:44.240 --> 01:05:59.359
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

239
01:05:59.359 --> 01:06:16.799
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

240
01:06:16.799 --> 01:06:34.720
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

241
01:06:34.720 --> 01:06:49.200
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

242
01:06:49.200 --> 01:07:06.880
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

243
01:07:06.880 --> 01:07:21.440
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

244
01:07:21.440 --> 01:07:39.039
>> 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

245
01:07:39.039 --> 01:07:56.319
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

246
01:07:56.319 --> 01:08:11.839
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

247
01:08:11.839 --> 01:08:28.400
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

248
01:08:28.400 --> 01:08:44.799
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

249
01:08:44.799 --> 01:09:01.520
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

250
01:09:01.520 --> 01:09:18.319
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

251
01:09:18.319 --> 01:09:34.640
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

252
01:09:34.640 --> 01:09:51.279
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

253
01:09:51.279 --> 01:10:05.920
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

254
01:10:05.920 --> 01:10:22.080
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

255
01:10:22.080 --> 01:10:37.760
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.

256
01:10:37.760 --> 01:10:52.560
>> 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

257
01:10:52.560 --> 01:11:09.120
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

258
01:11:09.120 --> 01:11:26.080
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

259
01:11:26.080 --> 01:11:43.199
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,

260
01:11:43.199 --> 01:11:58.000
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

261
01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:15.760
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

262
01:12:15.760 --> 01:12:32.000
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

263
01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:49.199
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

264
01:12:49.199 --> 01:13:05.280
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

265
01:13:05.280 --> 01:13:22.080
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

266
01:13:22.080 --> 01:13:38.320
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

267
01:13:38.320 --> 01:13:54.880
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

268
01:13:54.880 --> 01:14:11.120
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.

269
01:14:11.120 --> 01:14:25.920
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

270
01:14:25.920 --> 01:14:47.040
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

271
01:14:47.040 --> 01:15:01.600
>> 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.

272
01:15:01.600 --> 01:15:17.120
>> 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

273
01:15:17.120 --> 01:15:36.320
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

274
01:15:36.320 --> 01:15:52.080
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

275
01:15:52.080 --> 01:16:06.880
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.

276
01:16:06.880 --> 01:16:23.040
>> Okay. Um and the other thing uh um are there other localities where from which good estimates can be made of the time

277
01:16:23.040 --> 01:16:40.880
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

278
01:16:40.880 --> 01:16:56.239
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

279
01:16:56.239 --> 01:17:13.040
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

280
01:17:13.040 --> 01:17:27.360
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.

281
01:17:27.360 --> 01:17:44.000
>> 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

282
01:17:44.000 --> 01:18:00.800
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

283
01:18:00.800 --> 01:18:15.440
>> 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

284
01:18:15.440 --> 01:18:31.760
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

285
01:18:31.760 --> 01:18:47.040
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

286
01:18:47.040 --> 01:19:02.400
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

287
01:19:02.400 --> 01:19:19.679
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

288
01:19:19.679 --> 01:19:35.920
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

289
01:19:35.920 --> 01:19:51.679
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,

290
01:19:51.679 --> 01:20:08.640
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

291
01:20:08.640 --> 01:20:24.640
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

292
01:20:24.640 --> 01:20:41.159
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

293
01:20:41.679 --> 01:20:58.640
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

294
01:20:58.640 --> 01:21:15.120
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

295
01:21:15.120 --> 01:21:31.920
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

296
01:21:31.920 --> 01:21:50.400
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

297
01:21:50.400 --> 01:22:06.239
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

298
01:22:06.239 --> 01:22:22.800
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

299
01:22:22.800 --> 01:22:39.679
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

300
01:22:39.679 --> 01:22:56.080
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

301
01:22:56.080 --> 01:23:12.400
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

302
01:23:12.400 --> 01:23:27.520
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

303
01:23:27.520 --> 01:23:43.840
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

304
01:23:43.840 --> 01:24:01.360
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

305
01:24:01.360 --> 01:24:17.520
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.

306
01:24:17.520 --> 01:24:33.600
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

307
01:24:33.600 --> 01:24:48.960
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

308
01:24:48.960 --> 01:25:04.560
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

309
01:25:04.560 --> 01:25:22.159
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

310
01:25:22.159 --> 01:25:38.639
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

311
01:25:38.639 --> 01:25:54.159
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

312
01:25:54.159 --> 01:26:09.199
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

313
01:26:09.199 --> 01:26:26.239
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

314
01:26:26.239 --> 01:26:42.800
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

315
01:26:42.800 --> 01:27:00.080
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

316
01:27:00.080 --> 01:27:15.920
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

317
01:27:15.920 --> 01:27:33.360
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

318
01:27:33.360 --> 01:27:49.600
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,

319
01:27:49.600 --> 01:28:05.679
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

320
01:28:05.679 --> 01:28:22.320
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.

321
01:28:22.320 --> 01:28:37.199
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

322
01:28:37.199 --> 01:28:54.400
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

323
01:28:54.400 --> 01:29:10.239
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

324
01:29:10.239 --> 01:29:26.800
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

325
01:29:26.800 --> 01:29:42.639
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

326
01:29:42.639 --> 01:29:58.159
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

327
01:29:58.159 --> 01:30:14.239
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.

328
01:30:14.239 --> 01:30:29.600
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

329
01:30:29.600 --> 01:30:45.120
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.

330
01:30:45.120 --> 01:31:00.800
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,

331
01:31:00.800 --> 01:31:18.000
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,

332
01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:36.320
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.

333
01:31:36.320 --> 01:31:52.960
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

334
01:31:52.960 --> 01:32:08.080
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,

335
01:32:08.080 --> 01:32:26.639
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

336
01:32:26.639 --> 01:32:42.960
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

337
01:32:42.960 --> 01:32:59.440
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

338
01:32:59.440 --> 01:33:17.280
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

339
01:33:17.280 --> 01:33:32.800
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

340
01:33:32.800 --> 01:33:48.560
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

341
01:33:48.560 --> 01:34:06.000
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

342
01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:22.639
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

343
01:34:22.639 --> 01:34:37.600
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

344
01:34:37.600 --> 01:34:51.679
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

345
01:34:51.679 --> 01:35:08.159
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

346
01:35:08.159 --> 01:35:23.600
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

347
01:35:23.600 --> 01:35:39.120
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

348
01:35:39.120 --> 01:35:53.440
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

349
01:35:53.440 --> 01:36:12.880
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

350
01:36:12.880 --> 01:36:29.600
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,

351
01:36:29.600 --> 01:36:46.400
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

352
01:36:46.400 --> 01:37:02.159
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

353
01:37:02.159 --> 01:37:20.719
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

354
01:37:20.719 --> 01:37:36.239
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

355
01:37:36.239 --> 01:37:50.800
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

356
01:37:50.800 --> 01:38:05.520
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

357
01:38:05.520 --> 01:38:22.000
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

358
01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:37.679
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

359
01:38:37.679 --> 01:38:52.719
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

360
01:38:52.719 --> 01:39:09.040
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

361
01:39:09.040 --> 01:39:24.960
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

362
01:39:24.960 --> 01:39:41.679
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

363
01:39:41.679 --> 01:39:58.639
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,

364
01:39:58.639 --> 01:40:15.679
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

365
01:40:15.679 --> 01:40:30.719
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

366
01:40:30.719 --> 01:40:48.000
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

367
01:40:48.000 --> 01:41:04.639
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,

368
01:41:04.639 --> 01:41:23.040
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

369
01:41:23.040 --> 01:41:39.840
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.

370
01:41:39.840 --> 01:41:56.000
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

371
01:41:56.000 --> 01:42:13.679
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

372
01:42:13.679 --> 01:42:29.280
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

373
01:42:29.280 --> 01:42:44.560
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

374
01:42:44.560 --> 01:42:59.840
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

375
01:42:59.840 --> 01:43:16.800
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

376
01:43:16.800 --> 01:43:34.080
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

377
01:43:34.080 --> 01:43:50.960
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

378
01:43:50.960 --> 01:44:07.440
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

379
01:44:07.440 --> 01:44:23.679
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

380
01:44:23.679 --> 01:44:40.320
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

381
01:44:40.320 --> 01:44:56.719
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

382
01:44:56.719 --> 01:45:14.159
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

383
01:45:14.159 --> 01:45:31.040
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

384
01:45:31.040 --> 01:45:46.080
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

385
01:45:46.080 --> 01:46:01.280
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

386
01:46:01.280 --> 01:46:17.199
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

387
01:46:17.199 --> 01:46:31.440
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

388
01:46:31.440 --> 01:46:46.800
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

389
01:46:46.800 --> 01:47:02.800
>> 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

390
01:47:02.800 --> 01:47:19.960
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.

391
01:47:20.880 --> 01:47:37.520
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.

392
01:47:37.520 --> 01:47:53.199
>> 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.

393
01:47:53.199 --> 01:48:08.880
>> 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.

394
01:48:08.880 --> 01:48:23.840
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.

395
01:48:23.840 --> 01:48:39.360
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

396
01:48:39.360 --> 01:48:55.520
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

397
01:48:55.520 --> 01:49:13.760
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

398
01:49:13.760 --> 01:49:30.960
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

399
01:49:30.960 --> 01:49:46.239
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

400
01:49:46.239 --> 01:50:04.400
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

401
01:50:04.400 --> 01:50:20.159
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.

402
01:50:20.159 --> 01:50:34.719
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

403
01:50:34.719 --> 01:50:50.960
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

404
01:50:50.960 --> 01:51:11.360
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

405
01:51:11.360 --> 01:51:28.320
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

406
01:51:28.320 --> 01:51:45.920
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%

407
01:51:45.920 --> 01:52:02.000
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

408
01:52:02.000 --> 01:52:35.119
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.

409
01:52:35.119 --> 01:52:56.800
>> 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.

410
01:52:56.800 --> 01:53:15.440
>> 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

411
01:53:15.440 --> 01:53:32.639
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.

412
01:53:32.639 --> 01:53:46.960
>> 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

413
01:53:46.960 --> 01:54:04.320
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

414
01:54:04.320 --> 01:54:20.159
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

415
01:54:20.159 --> 01:54:36.159
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

416
01:54:36.159 --> 01:54:52.880
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.

417
01:54:52.880 --> 01:55:09.840
>> 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

418
01:55:09.840 --> 01:55:24.560
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

419
01:55:24.560 --> 01:55:39.840
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

420
01:55:39.840 --> 01:55:56.159
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

421
01:55:56.159 --> 01:56:13.760
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

422
01:56:13.760 --> 01:56:30.880
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

423
01:56:30.880 --> 01:56:47.040
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

424
01:56:47.040 --> 01:57:03.920
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

425
01:57:03.920 --> 01:57:20.560
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

426
01:57:20.560 --> 01:57:35.520
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

427
01:57:35.520 --> 01:57:50.960
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

428
01:57:50.960 --> 01:58:06.480
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

429
01:58:06.480 --> 01:58:21.679
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

430
01:58:21.679 --> 01:58:36.800
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

431
01:58:36.800 --> 01:58:54.800
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

432
01:58:54.800 --> 01:59:11.840
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

433
01:59:11.840 --> 01:59:28.719
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

434
01:59:28.719 --> 01:59:47.360
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

435
01:59:47.360 --> 02:00:04.080
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.

436
02:00:04.080 --> 02:00:21.280
>> 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

437
02:00:21.280 --> 02:00:37.440
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

438
02:00:37.440 --> 02:00:52.639
>> 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

439
02:00:52.639 --> 02:01:10.800
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

440
02:01:10.800 --> 02:01:26.320
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

441
02:01:26.320 --> 02:01:42.639
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

442
02:01:42.639 --> 02:01:59.360
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

443
02:01:59.360 --> 02:02:14.800
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

444
02:02:14.800 --> 02:02:30.639
>> 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

445
02:02:30.639 --> 02:02:46.880
>> 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

446
02:02:46.880 --> 02:03:01.520
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

447
02:03:01.520 --> 02:03:19.760
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

448
02:03:19.760 --> 02:03:37.360
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

449
02:03:37.360 --> 02:03:52.320
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

450
02:03:52.320 --> 02:04:10.719
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

451
02:04:10.719 --> 02:04:28.080
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

452
02:04:28.080 --> 02:04:43.679
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

453
02:04:43.679 --> 02:05:01.280
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

454
02:05:01.280 --> 02:05:17.599
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

455
02:05:17.599 --> 02:05:33.440
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

456
02:05:33.440 --> 02:05:48.719
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

457
02:05:48.719 --> 02:06:07.599
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

458
02:06:07.599 --> 02:06:23.520
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

459
02:06:23.520 --> 02:06:38.880
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

460
02:06:38.880 --> 02:06:55.599
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

461
02:06:55.599 --> 02:07:12.639
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

462
02:07:12.639 --> 02:07:28.320
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

463
02:07:28.320 --> 02:07:43.440
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

464
02:07:43.440 --> 02:08:02.480
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

465
02:08:02.480 --> 02:08:19.280
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

466
02:08:19.280 --> 02:08:36.159
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

467
02:08:36.159 --> 02:08:53.280
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

468
02:08:53.280 --> 02:09:11.679
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

469
02:09:11.679 --> 02:09:27.920
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%

470
02:09:27.920 --> 02:09:44.719
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

471
02:09:44.719 --> 02:10:02.079
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

472
02:10:02.079 --> 02:10:18.719
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

473
02:10:18.719 --> 02:10:35.440
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.

474
02:10:35.440 --> 02:10:53.199
>> 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

475
02:10:53.199 --> 02:11:10.400
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

476
02:11:10.400 --> 02:11:26.880
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

477
02:11:26.880 --> 02:11:42.960
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

478
02:11:42.960 --> 02:11:59.199
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.

479
02:11:59.199 --> 02:12:16.480
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

480
02:12:16.480 --> 02:12:33.520
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

481
02:12:33.520 --> 02:12:50.159
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

482
02:12:50.159 --> 02:13:05.599
>> 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

483
02:13:05.599 --> 02:13:21.199
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

484
02:13:21.199 --> 02:13:38.320
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

485
02:13:38.320 --> 02:13:54.159
>> 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

486
02:13:54.159 --> 02:14:10.960
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

487
02:14:10.960 --> 02:14:28.079
$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

488
02:14:28.079 --> 02:14:44.960
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

489
02:14:44.960 --> 02:15:01.119
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

490
02:15:01.119 --> 02:15:19.520
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

491
02:15:19.520 --> 02:15:36.159
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

492
02:15:36.159 --> 02:15:52.719
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

493
02:15:52.719 --> 02:16:07.119
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.

494
02:16:07.119 --> 02:16:24.679
>> 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.

495
02:16:24.880 --> 02:16:41.040
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

496
02:16:41.040 --> 02:16:56.000
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,

497
02:16:56.000 --> 02:17:12.479
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

498
02:17:12.479 --> 02:17:28.000
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.

499
02:17:28.000 --> 02:17:43.599
>> 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

500
02:17:43.599 --> 02:17:53.960
I'm going to move adjournment. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you everyone.