##VIDEO ID:https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/994DtmGEsi0VDYK3jJI2BJ72GfgNIpU2/media/916629?autostart=false&showtabssearch=true&fullscreen=false## <v Speaker 1>Good evening.</v> I'm Jeff Richards at Acting Chair. One second. One second one. It might be you, <v Speaker 2>I don't know. Oh,</v> <v Speaker 3>That's why. Should be good</v> <v Speaker 1>Now.</v> Okay. Jeff Richards acting chair for the conservation Committee tonight, Thursday and November 21st, 2024. With that, the first case is a certificate of compliance request 82 North Avenue, zero Lake Street. So do we have, will be Goddard Consulting on the line? <v Speaker 2>Yes. We've got Mark Arnold</v> and Michael from Goddard Consulting on the line. Just to give a little bit of background and context, the commission may recall from quite some time ago, this was the filing associated with the drainage work for the paper board development on North, north Main Street at 82 North Main Street. The drainage needed to be connected into an existing outfall. There was some substantial drainage work, there were some, because of that drainage work in the, on the DCR land, there was a required wetlands replication and invasive species management plan. This commission issued a partial certificate of compliance for the drainage work that was done back in 2016. But the wetlands replication monitoring and the invasive species management had a longer timeline associated with that. Goddard consultant has been doing the monitoring and the invasive management in coordination with Nancy Putnam, who is the, the DCR ecologist. And I went out to the site last week with Mark and Michael to review the area. <v Speaker 1>I think George and I were the only ones on it in 2011.</v> I had to go back and check to see if I actually was on the commission in 2011. I saw my signature on the original order condition. Was it 2011? It was the 2011 was the first one. November, 2011 was the work started, <v Speaker 2>Or 2016 was when the partial COC was issued? Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. And there was the outfall on zero Lake Street</v> work that was being done. Yeah, that's <v Speaker 2>The</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh, you had to go back</v> and kind of asbuilt have gone. So there's <v Speaker 4>A problem with all the horse</v> carts and everything there, right? <v Speaker 1>Well they were, they were, they were tearing up Lake</v> Street too at the time. They were repairing Lake Street too with that, but it was way back. Yeah. So Mark and Michael, you wanna give a like, just a, a brief update since the partial order condition? 'cause I think it, that's where some of the invasive species management and the replication inspection started for a couple years down to where we're at right now. Just to bring everyone up to speed. <v Speaker 5>Yep. Yep. So here Michael Schmidt here</v> with Goddard Consulting on behalf of Mill Creek Residential. So, yeah, so thank you for the summary, Claire. You summed it up pretty well. Basically, after that partial certificate was issued, what remained was invasive species monitoring and and monitoring of those two, those two areas, the replication area, which you can see on the left of the, the plan there and the restoration area there on the right and the order of conditions are required. Well, we, we completed a six years total of, of monitoring of both those areas. Two years as required by the order of conditions and then a four additional years as required by the permit issued by DCR. And then we also conducted five years of invasive species management on both those areas to ensure that both those areas met the 75% coverage requirement of native wetland vegetation. By this time, and I'm happy to report that both of the areas have been successfully established. They continue to perform well as of our site walk last Thursday with Claire and DCR has also reviewed the areas and is satisfied with everything under their permit. So now that all these, oh, and also there was also one other small condition for the stabilization of the, the main site. There were some areas that were a bit bare or patchy when the partial certificate was issued. And since then that site has been fully stabilized. So pretty much all the conditions have now been, have been met. And so we're just requesting that final certificate of compliance to close the project out. <v Speaker 1>And, and this is the, that specific aspect is,</v> is the zero Lake Street outfall <v Speaker 5>The Yes.</v> The the replication and the restoration area? Yes. That's, that's zero Lake Street. <v Speaker 1>Who owns that? Is that dcr R'S property? Yep. Okay,</v> <v Speaker 2>So it's part of the larger Pegan Cove</v> Yeah. Conservation area. <v Speaker 1>Will, will DCR are in reading, so your reports,</v> there was still some invasives that are still there, correct? <v Speaker 6>Yeah. So DCR is aware that there's a little bit of upkeep</v> that needs to be just kind of watched for they understood the, the challenges of some of the area, I mean the area is is they own a lot more land in the area we even managed. Yeah. So they're, they're aware of the area, but they were very happy with the amount of effort that we put into the, the area in the last five, six years in managing and, and bringing this, the, the vases under a, a significant control in terms of near eradication and eradication of some certain species in our management area. So that's, that, that's all part of it. So we had a, a detailed walk with DCR kind of showing them these are the areas that we had trouble. So just these are the areas to keep an eye out for in the future just because these are the areas that we struggle with management. So they were aware of that and were very happy with the work that we put in. And we've been long, long project since, since 2015 for my end actually I've been working on this project. So I'm glad to see the, the, the results of our hard work. <v Speaker 1>Claire, there are any perpetual conditions</v> that will be transferred to DCR or is this just gonna close it out? <v Speaker 2>Ibel, I don't believe there were any perpetual conditions</v> in regard to the invasive species management. Nancy and I do coordinate on some of the invasive work that they're doing here in town. But because the perpetual conditions would apply to the, the applicant and the site, I don't believe that the, this commission placed any perpetual conditions in terms of the basis, <v Speaker 1>Because it's the property owner of 82</v> North Main Street that <v Speaker 2>They were the applicant and with DCR sign off</v> because it's on the DCR property. Yes. <v Speaker 1>So when we, if we issue the certificate of compliance,</v> then the app, then the applicant 82 will no longer have any responsibility for the zero Lake Street. <v Speaker 2>They will be required to maintain their own property</v> to which drains to this location, but they will not have any responsibility over this DCR parcel. Correct. And the commission can see in the, the Google Drive folder is the email from DCR noting that the permit has been satisfactory satisfactorily complied with, that's not a word as well as the monitoring reports from the last five years for the wetland replication area <v Speaker 4>Back in 2011, were there any invasive species there?</v> <v Speaker 2>There were, yes.</v> <v Speaker 4>I think it was rift with it,</v> <v Speaker 2>Yes.</v> It's definitely, it's looking quite nice. The, the saplings that were planted as part of the replication are looking quite good and quite healthy. Obviously the, the water levels in the drainage outfall were quite low last Thursday we hadn't gotten any rain. I imagine it looks quite different out there today. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Any questions?</v> Okay, hearing none then. So it will be a entertain a motion to issue the certificate of compliance for 82 North Main Street. Zero Lake Street. <v Speaker 4>So move.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay, George. Seconded. Second. Seconded.</v> Chris, since he's here. All in favor. Great. Alright. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, <v Speaker 2>Mark.</v> I'll have that issued to you guys on Monday. <v Speaker 6>Great. Appreciate it.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay, so the, the next one is, this is,</v> we have not opened this up. <v Speaker 2>No, this is a, this is the first public hearing</v> associated with this project. I do have the legal ed going up on the screen right now. I can zoom if that's easier. Okay. <v Speaker 1>Right. In accordance with the Natick local wellness bylaw</v> article 79, the Natick Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by David debell for property at 12 Ferndale Road map seven lot 17. The proposal is for an after the fact approval fulfilled, placed within the a hundred foot buffer zone and requesting approval for necessary mitigation actions. <v Speaker 2>So the commission may recall, we've been working</v> with this owner since July of this year when the violation was first noted. The owner was not aware of the wetlands to the rear of the house. He's been very compliant and responsive throughout this process, which has been a, a great thing to work with. The area was delineated by Patrick Garner wetland scientist working with Metro West Engineering who prepared the stamped plan sheet that's provided in the folder. Just as a reminder to the commission, the area was delineated as an isolated vegetated wetland. So this notice of intent is being filed only under our local bylaw, not the state regulations, which is why that legal ad read a little differently than the ones we're usually hearing. IVW is not protected under the state wetlands regulations unless it falls within riverfront area or bordering land subject to flooding. So the state does not have any jurisdiction over this specific wetland, but we under our local bylaw do the commission has been kept pretty up to date on the sort of backs and forths on this project. I tried to provide a nice summary in the staff notes that I provided a copy of, which were also provided to the, the property owner. I think that the primary point of discussion tonight is, and I do do expect this, you know, will bring this back at our next hearing to review conditions and, and formally issue a permit. But we could potentially close a hearing tonight if the commission is comfortable. The recommended actions that I had developed for mitigation included removing the material from the 25 foot no disturb zone. As is noted in Pat's report. There's about 14 square feet of that stone material that's within the 25 foot no disturb zone, adding loam and receding that area along with one sapling. I suggested a red maple and I suggested some seed mixes for the actual slope, adding loam to the slope provide applying the seed mix and applying jupe mesh. I do think that, and this will come in the condition language, that the watering of this is gonna be critical for the commission to condition, allowing the applicant to establish long grass at the top of the slope along the level area. I do think that fencing may be appropriate. I think that the commission can condition that that's allowed, doesn't necessarily need to be installed. And then I suggested sort of a monitoring plan of assessing how the seed growth comes in on the slope and depending on how well that has done over the course of either six months or two growing seasons, my thinking with that difference is if, if the work had happened this fall, six months would not have really gotten us to a point of being able to see how the growth is doing. So the two growing seasons would put us into the fall of next year. If the work happens in the spring, I think that six months is probably an appropriate time to assess the growth and that if the slope does not appear to be stabilized, installing some additional plantings that can be sewed straight, cutting a hole in the juke mesh and putting the shrub straight in to maintain the stabilization that has been established while providing additional root mass to help continue that stabilization. And then can you put some <v Speaker 1>Pictures of that too?</v> And particularly the pictures that show the area that has the, like the debris that we'd be talking about that would subject to removal? Yes. <v Speaker 2>So pulling up</v> the photos now <v Speaker 1>And, and will,</v> <v Speaker 2>So this is actually</v> the area of the slope. It's sort of this very bottom most section here is the portion that is within the IVW so folks can see it. It is a larger stone material that has, that's obviously how gravity works. The larger material is gonna fall to the base of the slope. Patrick Garner in his memo, did recommend not removing any of the material to avoid creating any deep stabilization in the slope and or creating further disturbance within the no disturb zone. The removal of this material is possible by hand. It would be very difficult. I, and so I guess the big question before the commission is, do we feel that the removal of the material within the 25 foot notice disturb zone is a necessary part of this project? May that set precedent for future projects? Or is there appropriate mitigation that we can require in the remainder of the buffer zone that could potentially allow that material to stay, you know, additional stabilization, additional, you know, plantings, there's not really <v Speaker 7>In that, in that environment</v> that you're talking about putting stabilization on that TGA. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So the, the slope would be stabilized with the loam,</v> the seed mix and the jute mesh. The question is, is there any additional, you know, could we say <v Speaker 1>On top of that, on top of that</v> rock stone? Well the loam would <v Speaker 8>Be on top of the stone.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yeah. Or do we want to say, you know, there needs to be,</v> you know, three saplings installed in the 25 foot no disturb zone to mitigate for the material without it being required to be removed. Depending on the size of the saplings, the actual installation of them could be more minimized in terms of disturbance. But that really is, you know, what we're here to discuss with the commission tonight. Dave, the owner is on the, the line, I believe David's iPhone. Is that you Dave? Yes, <v Speaker 9>Yes, yes.</v> And I don't know why my camera's not working now. Oh, <v Speaker 2>We can see you now do.</v> <v Speaker 9>Oh you can, yes. Alright. Hello.</v> <v Speaker 1>Hello. And, and what's feeding this?</v> Is it just street runoff that, <v Speaker 2>So this is essentially, this area is</v> <v Speaker 8>To, it's a bowl. It used to, it used to be a stream.</v> <v Speaker 2>It used to, it definitely used to be a stream.</v> It's now a bowl. The home's on Pine Street also sit up elevated and the homes on Ferndale sit up elevated. And this is just <v Speaker 1>So just gathers runoff.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yeah. You can see on the,</v> <v Speaker 8>That's been piped. Yes.</v> <v Speaker 2>So if you look at the stream stats,</v> you can see the historic streams that flowed through this area. But, but currently this is a <v Speaker 8>Artificial IVW.</v> <v Speaker 2>Exactly.</v> <v Speaker 8>It has to be a strain</v> when I grow up go. <v Speaker 2>So yes, you can see right in here, this is the area</v> of wetland that we're discussing right now. So there, there was historically probably a stream that connected these two pockets of IVW and then drained down probably most likely this way under Felch Road into the larger, this is the Weathersfield neighborhood, which I think probably 90% of it used to be wetlands and was filled draining down into the pickle pond area just to the, the east of the area. <v Speaker 8>That's the brown farm.</v> <v Speaker 2>So the, the recommendations</v> for the slope stabilization are, are very much in line with what Pat recommends in his memo. Like I said, I do think that the conditions and how we word them is gonna be important and we can, you know, review in live conditions at our next meeting. But I, I think we're, what I was hoping to get out of this meeting is whether or not the material from that 25 foot no disturb zone, whether we feel like that should be removed or whether we feel like there can be alternate mitigation rather than the removal without necessarily setting precedent for future projects. <v Speaker 1>And if it was to, if we were to order it removed,</v> would it just be at the be removed like 10 feet up the slope and then placed on the slope? <v Speaker 2>I placing it on the slope is probably</v> not gonna actually be functional. It'd probably be equipment sitting on top of the slope pulling that material up and either disposing of an offsite or you know, somewhere else on the lot where it's, or the slope goes level falling into <v Speaker 10>It anyways.</v> I mean, it's gonna be a mess. It's a big disturb. I mean they just rock right now it's just rock that's there. Yeah. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So the material has been incredibly stable.</v> I I was last out at the site early mid October. Dave, just after the rain today. Have you seen any issues out there? <v Speaker 9>No, there's nothing.</v> So it was loam, tailings in the beginning, just like the big rocks. I mean just that's what was on there first. And then, I mean there's apparently you screen loam you can screen it a hundred times and that's like the better loam. And then there's, you know, less screened loam so there's more dirt put on later on. But I mean it's rock solid. But my only concern was at the bottom where I think I'm within the two, it's of the 25 foot Yep. Buffer zone. My closest one is 23 feet away. My closest point to the wetlands is 23 feet away. But I think if I was to remove that two feet, some of those are the bigger rocks right at the base of the Yeah. Hill. I mean if you wanna do it by hand, I mean I could call like some friends over, I mean it could do it, but I just think it's gonna be like what I remove, it's just gonna shift down more, you know what I'm saying? It would just be, just keep happening. 'cause it's like at the very, very bottom. So whenever I remove, like it's just gonna fall down more 'cause I'm removing like the base of it and then it, that all fell back in. You know, I was trying to like dig in sand, dig a hole in sand, it just keeps falling back in. I don't know. <v Speaker 2>So here is the, the plan from metro west engineering</v> with the wetland delineation and the marked out area of the, the tailings. So this is that small triangle that we're discussing right here. <v Speaker 10>Yeah. And it's mostly bald is good</v> size rocks right now, right? Yeah. That <v Speaker 9>That, yeah.</v> The bottom is the biggest rocks. The biggest rocks. Like, you know, i, the biggest rocks went first and all that. And then as the, towards the end they started to put like some ones with dirt in it and all that. I mean, if you come it's, they must have fun. You need to come look at it. Like these pictures were taken a long time ago, but I mean it's, it looks, it's solid. I, I don't know, not <v Speaker 10>A decade ago.</v> Yeah, I, I know I I was concerned about that little area. Why, why disturb it now. Mm. Right. The only thing is, I'm looking back at a photo, it seems like there are a few rocks that sort of went in maybe a few little further, you know, of a couple of those could be thrown back. <v Speaker 9>Yeah, I I could get those out of there.</v> <v Speaker 10>Absolutely. Yeah. That, that might be</v> <v Speaker 2>Nice.</v> Yeah. So it could be, you know, a sort of a compromise that there is some material, you know, you can see a couple of these rocks, not the, <v Speaker 1>Not the tree material though, right?</v> No, no, the rocks. Yeah, just the rocks. Yeah. <v Speaker 2>I, I mean the, the tree material I think is not gonna</v> necessarily cause any issues. Some they're all, the majority was actually there prior to this work being done. So I mean if the commission is comfortable, I can draft a set of conditions with the understanding that we would be looking for mitigation without the removal of that material. So I would you of that triangle of that triangle, <v Speaker 11>Small independent</v> <v Speaker 2>Boulders.</v> Yeah, we could, we could look at the small independent boulders and we could, you know, there these areas of 25 foot no disturb and 40 foot no build zone. You know, when it's the height of summer it, it gets quite a bit of shade back here because the, there's a tree line here in between the homes, but it does still get a fair amount of sun throughout the day. So the, there are definitely plantings that would do well there. The plantings that I have recommended for the slope are specifically coming from, I wanna say it was the University of Maine extensions strip mining planting, or I think it's barren and degraded soil plantings recommendations, strip mining. And so the strip mining was, was Mike's recommendation. And so, you know, we could see some more of those plantings, you know, maybe there's another cluster of shrubs that we require be planted down along the base of the slope at the initial time of, you know, loam application. <v Speaker 11>It'd certainly be good to use as a visual delineation</v> for any future home buyer. That's a, <v Speaker 2>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 10>Will will something be going over the,</v> the big rocks will will the, <v Speaker 2>The, the loam will probably come down to those big rocks.</v> Okay. Alright. I, I doubt it will bury those rocks completely. And then that, that again is something that I am gonna write up conditions about, you know, how is that loam applied? How is it stabilized after application? Those will all be part of the conditions that I write. I actually, thankfully have experience in writing conditions about slope stabilization projects. So if, if the commission is comfortable with that sort of understanding moving forward, I'm happy to get some, yeah, go ahead. David. <v Speaker 12>One question. The, i it's hard for me to see the angle.</v> Mm yes. I gather you're saying it's very stable so it's not sliding like a scree slope, but it's topo is a good, is it steep enough or is it, is it shallow enough that it will hold the low or is it just gonna wash off if we have another spring like we did this year? <v Speaker 2>So that is gonna be the question. It is very steep.</v> It's all gonna come down to application and how it is stabilized. You can see in my recommendations, I note that there should be qua rows that are installed on top of the juke mesh that help hold that in place. So, and I can't actually, I might be able to draw on the plan in zoom. Let's see if I'm really lucky. <v Speaker 1>I thought there was a picture from the other.</v> Yeah, there, there was one picture that had the, it's stupid like the backhoe on top of it. Oh yeah, look from the house. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. Yeah. So the backhoe is sitting up on top of there.</v> I'm gonna pull up the topo. But essentially what it would look like, the loam would be applied, the juke mesh would be laid across the entirety of the slope. And then you would set strips of coconut core logs in. And I've seen it done different ways. And this will likely be something that I do a little research on between now and the next meeting. What would make the most sense can either be installed in a and my lines aren't perfect right here, like a slightly 45 degree angle or they can be installed parallel with the slope. I'll do some more research on what the best methodology is to draft up the conditions. But that essentially helps to, it stakes in the juke mesh and provides some of additional water breaks essentially as it's moving down the slope. And all of this, you know, this'll probably be a site where, you know, I'm driving by every couple of weeks to just take a peek at how things are going. I was doing a lot of that today with the rain. <v Speaker 13>So one inch equals 10 feet on the engineered plans.</v> We have a 33 and a half foot distance slope distance, right from 70 feet to 93 and a half. So do we know, can somebody run the math on that? Yes. With the, with the slope percentages? Possibly. Would you <v Speaker 2>Repeat those numbers quickly, Mike?</v> <v Speaker 13>I think it was 73 or excuse me, hold on.</v> 70 and a half is the bottom of this, of the slope and then the top of the slope is nine, three and a half. So 30. Wow. 33 and a half. <v Speaker 1>Yes. David, you're, you're muted David.</v> <v Speaker 2>Oh David, go ahead and unmute yourself.</v> Not able to let me, let me ask you to unmute. That might be easiest. There you go, David. <v Speaker 12>So 70, 75 face,</v> 93 foot you height. Wow that's over. <v Speaker 9>So if you look at all my neighbors,</v> like if you're looking out at the hill, which is over there, all my, I'm just following like exactly what theirs are. Like, they're like slopes there. Everything. I mean they have trees growing on, they have, but I had the land in the back, like their slopes go right to their, like their neighbor's driveways. I mean like their property ends like the end of the slope is, someone's driveway is like five feet away. I, it's not really as far as I, I feel like if you guys wanna come look at it like, and look at everyone's, I have like all the land in like the back where anything could happen. Like all my neighbors going this way. Like they're right in the backyard of the people. Like if you roll the ball down their hill, it would land on the other person's driveway. Some cases their backyards. Mine, I have a whole big thing. I don't, I don't know, it's not, I don't know. <v Speaker 2>So the, the slope is</v> <v Speaker 8>Their hill is vegetated though. The</v> <v Speaker 9>Neighbor Well, well I mean where plans are re-vegetated.</v> <v Speaker 8>Yeah. Well it's, it's not going to,</v> <v Speaker 2>It, it, it is, see</v> <v Speaker 13>The scale,</v> <v Speaker 2>It's not quite a one to one slope,</v> but it's pretty darn close. <v Speaker 13>I don't have the,</v> <v Speaker 2>I'd say probably a, a one to 1.5.</v> <v Speaker 8>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 2>I got about,</v> and these are using very rough finger screen measurements, which are the most accurate kind of measurement you can use approximately a run of 28 and a rise of 23. And it varies across the slope because the width and the elevations change. 'cause you can see, oh actually I'm not sharing my screen right now at this point on the, you can see the bottom of the slope is 78.6 over here versus 70.5 on the wetland side. So the, the wetland side is actually steep, the steepest point of the slope. <v Speaker 8>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 13>Yeah. If we could, if it's possible for just</v> to get some calculations on, on the slope just so we, you know, so whatever the mitigation is we could is appropriate. Yeah. We're just not like, I'm not saying that we haven't thought about it, but I know we have quite Yeah. Intent intently. It's just having numbers to make sure that whatever the spec of the product that's being applied is appropriate. <v Speaker 8>Appropriate</v> <v Speaker 13>For the slope.</v> <v Speaker 2>Absolutely.</v> <v Speaker 13>'cause it might need,</v> you know, it might need anchors. Like some of these products might require anchors over a 30% slope or <v Speaker 2>Yeah, I can do some research on that</v> and then prepare appropriate conditions for the project. Absolutely. Does the commission like the idea of a base row of plantings as part of the initial mitigation? Maybe it's a combination of, of saplings and shrubs to mitigate not requiring the removal of that 14 square feet. <v Speaker 8>I think that's reasonable. Okay. Yep. I agree</v> <v Speaker 9>Actually.</v> <v Speaker 2>So David, did you wanna say something?</v> <v Speaker 9>Yeah, yeah. Can you bring up the map again of the,</v> it was like, it showed how much was on the actual, within the 25 foot buffer zone. Yep. So my original plans were if his, I mean this is all new to me. I had no idea that they were Can you show like what's like, go up like Yep. Do you see the part that's not finished right there? Like what, what was not filled in? See like the part out of the a hundred foot buffer zone? Like, but just like see my property line? <v Speaker 2>Yes. This area over here, David.</v> <v Speaker 9>Yeah. Am I, am I gonna be able to finish that?</v> Like well are you talking about planting stuff? Should I finish that? I mean what's like the, <v Speaker 2>Oh, so, so David, this would be plantings down in this</v> area here along the base of the slope? No, you're just talking about <v Speaker 9>Yep.</v> So am I ever gonna be able to finish that area right there? <v Speaker 2>Yeah, so David permit, well so this is the area that's</v> outside of the a hundred foot buffer zone as well. So David, once the commission, you know, access for equipment will, so if you're planning to finish off that portion of the slope, I'll appropriately, appropriately address that in the permit language. The commission does have jurisdiction over, you know, how the equipment accesses that area as it does go through the a hundred foot buffer zone, but the commission has is limited jurisdiction or <v Speaker 13>The fill ex if, if the amount</v> of fill exceeds our storm water. Right. <v Speaker 2>That's very true. Yes. So David, yeah, I'll, I'll</v> email you about what your plans are for that area and maybe we can work to address that as part of the permit. <v Speaker 13>It might record the storm water.</v> <v Speaker 1>Hmm.</v> <v Speaker 13>Possibly.</v> <v Speaker 9>Alright. Yeah, no thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. So, so it's a sense.</v> So are we ready to, to close it and move towards prepping an order condition or, <v Speaker 2>Or we can leave it open and still move towards</v> prepping an order of conditions and close an issue at the next meeting, get <v Speaker 1>Some additional information to, to consider</v> before moving to close. <v Speaker 13>Is there, is there a way to, I,</v> did we talk about identifying the 40 foot no build zone in this? Is there a need to, is there any potential that something would happen in the 40 foot zone? <v Speaker 2>I think given the slope there, the likelihood</v> of anything being built is, it would be <v Speaker 1>Slim.</v> I mean the only work that would be done there would be the, would be the mitigation, right? Somebody went down <v Speaker 11>Lower, lower flat area and put a shed or something.</v> <v Speaker 13>Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 1>That area right there is</v> <v Speaker 13>Flat.</v> <v Speaker 1>Where's the, where's the flat?</v> Where's the top of the flat area? <v Speaker 2>That's this area right here.</v> <v Speaker 1>Right there. Yeah. So all of that.</v> <v Speaker 2>So I mean the commission as part</v> of their permit can condition signage or markers at the top of the slope noting that, you know, there's a wetland resource area down slope similar to the markers that we require on on other projects. I, I think a garage placard may be because the house is fully outside the buffer zone. A garage placard might be a little bit, <v Speaker 1>I think placard</v> <v Speaker 2>Over words.</v> But a little point at one of the top right there coins that we have wanna <v Speaker 1>Be a fence also installed. David</v> <v Speaker 2>Had talked about potentially doing a fence in the future</v> because of where the top of the slope is located. The fence would be a minor exempt activity. 'cause it, well it's outta the state regs entirely under our local bylaw would still be considered minor exempt activity as long as it doesn't bar wildlife passage. So they could go on a fence, but I think they should be likely installed on some kind of marker regardless of whether a fence goes in or not. Okay. <v Speaker 13>Yeah, if there's any mitigation, planting, I just,</v> I would just say just evaluate that that zone, if there's invasives that can be potentially treated at the same time of planting instead of kind of throwing good money after or whatever this terminology is, you'd hate to plant something and, and then it be taken over by bittersweet and, <v Speaker 9>Well there's, am I still unmuted?</v> <v Speaker 2>Nope, we got you David.</v> <v Speaker 9>Oh, in the Pat Gardner's notes,</v> I don't know invasive, there's an extensive area of Japanese knot wood approximately 40 feet northwest of the field area <v Speaker 13>Northwest,</v> <v Speaker 9>I don't know.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yep. I was just gonna pull up that.</v> <v Speaker 1>Is that, that and that's in the,</v> <v Speaker 2>That's pat in pat Garner's</v> that drive a document called cover letter in the, the Google drive folder. So to the, the northwest would be, sorry, <v Speaker 1>The 40 foot,</v> <v Speaker 2>It would be sort of the, this back corner</v> of the property here north is up on this plane sheet. <v Speaker 1>Is that his, is that David's property?</v> <v Speaker 2>It, it's, if we're going by 40 feet, it's 10.</v> And I just wanna double check. Does he say of the field area or of the <v Speaker 9>No, no, the</v> of the field area Northwest approximately 40 feet northwest of the filled area. So <v Speaker 2>That's probably just on David's property.</v> And then just off onto the neighbor's property. 'cause you can see the edge of the filled area. So you've got 15 feet into the 40 foot no build zone. Northwest is this property corner here. So it, it's probably a portion on his property, a portion on the, the abutting properties. <v Speaker 1>But if you don't deal with their knotweed, then dealing</v> with his knotweed won't really put a dent in that. Well <v Speaker 13>As long as the knotweed doesn't get on that slope,</v> I think you'll be, you know, if it gets on the slope that inherently makes the slope slope not stable any longer because of the, the roots Japanese knotweed roots. So that, that would be my only concern is that if that knotweed expands out and starts to infiltrate into that slope area, then now we're, we're talking about a different calculus. <v Speaker 2>Well I think and if we're gonna be monitoring the slope</v> stabilization, we can also be monitoring the encroachment of the invasives. Okay. <v Speaker 4>But is the knot weed in on his</v> <v Speaker 2>That's what we were just saying.</v> It, it's partially and then partially not at least based on pat's, you know, approximations in his letter. <v Speaker 4>So if it's on the neighbor's land too.</v> Even if you get rid of it, <v Speaker 2>I think that's why we're gonna say we're gonna, it's</v> <v Speaker 4>Not gonna Yeah, it's, it is not gonna go away. Yep. It</v> <v Speaker 13>Is not.</v> <v Speaker 4>It's horrible. Not</v> unless you put heavy black plastic on top <v Speaker 2>Of it.</v> Well and even then those runners will, <v Speaker 4>You can't cut, you can't cut it down.</v> Yeah. But if it's black plastic, it absorbs the heat in the summer and you cook the roots. Hopefully you can't eat 'em, but you cook 'em, <v Speaker 13>I'd eat them.</v> <v Speaker 2>They, they're actually a very valuable product in the</v> beauty industry currently, weirdly enough. <v Speaker 4>Oh</v> <v Speaker 2>Boy. Japanese Notwe produces a,</v> a nature-based version of retinol that has become quite popular in the beauty industry in the last few years. <v Speaker 4>Why don't we just about the get together can make some</v> money to our gold mine. Want to make proof. <v Speaker 2>There you go David. David.</v> A money making opportunity. Yeah, <v Speaker 4>Right.</v> Geez. Exporting it. <v Speaker 2>So definitely maybe a little bit more homework on my end</v> as I work to prepare some conditions. So I guess I, if the commission doesn't have any more questions or comments, we can either continue or vote to close and review conditions at the next meeting. <v Speaker 1>What's the consensus vote to close?</v> I'd say are people comfortable closing or do you wanna keep it open? <v Speaker 4>Well, you're gonna get some more information on</v> what you're gonna put down on it, what your materials are going to be. And <v Speaker 13>We trust, we trust Claire.</v> Right. <v Speaker 2>Fingers crossed. I won't take it personally.</v> <v Speaker 13>Maybe George doesn't.</v> <v Speaker 2>That's</v> <v Speaker 1>True.</v> There's no, there's no abuts. We did the, he did the abut notification. <v Speaker 2>Yes, we do have the certificate of mailing in the,</v> the provided materials. There they are. Yeah. I think because the most of this work has been in place for so long. Yeah. The were <v Speaker 1>We're probably oblivious.</v> <v Speaker 13>Yeah. I mean is there any, is there any way to condition</v> that we could just deal with this phase two of the pro I, I'd like not to have a another, you know, unless it's a storm water permit because of the amount of fill, because it, 'cause it's not, you know, wrapped up into this permitting process. So, you know, having an idea if that's gonna trigger some other permit. Yep. Or if it's gonna fall under, well it won't fall under this permit, but yeah, just the phase two thing. Just whether or not that's gonna need a permit. <v Speaker 2>Yep. I'll work with David and we, David you</v> and I can do some, you know, rough estimates of what that area is gonna look like and figure out what the, what those next steps are. <v Speaker 1>I mean you could do a perfect, you could do an RDA right?</v> Not for storm water. No, no, no. I mean for the, for the trucks. For the equipment passing in the a hundred foot buffer zone. If, if that we could cover is gonna be more the <v Speaker 2>Buffer zone we cover, we could cover the access as part</v> of this permit and just determine if the fill, what the fill is gonna trigger in the future. Because I think the equipment access that area is already level, the emerging controls are in, in theory. There aren't any additional conditions needed for that equipment access. Simple. <v Speaker 13>Like the simple stuff that we do with equipment.</v> Like no fueling in the a hundred foot zone. <v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean as long as he wasn't looming and seeding it</v> and then driving over the top of it, which <v Speaker 2>I don't think that's, I would assume that is not the plan.</v> Okay. <v Speaker 1>Oh, alright. Well entertain a, a motion to close if</v> that's the consensus of the board. Motion to close. Seconded. Second. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay, you can, no, I, oh, alright. So wake up. Alright, so, so <v Speaker 2>Dave I'll reach out to you.</v> I'll put together some draft conditions that you and I can review and I can answer any questions that you might have. And then the commission will vote to issue those conditions at the hearing on December 5th. <v Speaker 9>Perfect. Thank you. Thank you all.</v> <v Speaker 1>You're welcome. Alright David, thank you.</v> <v Speaker 9>Alright, thank you so much.</v> <v Speaker 1>Excuse me. Okay,</v> so next on the agenda is <v Speaker 2>Ni oh actually just the, the meadow Pond lane.</v> The abutters are still working on getting the, the engineered materials completed. So no, no substantial updates since our last meeting. <v Speaker 4>They're taking dams out all over the west.</v> That's west, right. And now we're putting them in these put <v Speaker 1>Back in. Yeah, the</v> <v Speaker 13>Frogs are coming back. I hear.</v> <v Speaker 4>Well there won't be any salmon running up</v> there, so I wouldn't worry. <v Speaker 2>So next would be minutes. Minutes.</v> <v Speaker 1>I've reviewed the minutes, didn't see any issues.</v> I'll take a motion to accept the minutes. <v Speaker 2>I think you might have to make that motion. I'll make</v> <v Speaker 1>That motion.</v> Okay. Motion to accept the minutes for July 18th and August 15th. Seconded by George. All in favor? All right. Wow. Remarkable. Last but not least is general business. Yes. <v Speaker 2>So just a couple of things.</v> I sent around the PDF of this in the email earlier this week as well. It's also available in the drive. I didn't necessarily intend for us to have a, a super detailed discussion on this tonight. I really just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that I have completed a draft application for the technical assistance program through MAPC in relation to our tree protection bylaw drafting process. I think the hope is to have a, a more substantial block of time dedicated to the tree protection bylaw discussion at our next meeting when Matt will be present. Again, the TAP applications are due December 20th. So I think if we can all agree that we're happy with where the application is at at our next meeting, we'll have plenty of time to get things submitted. It's technically a rolling application so we could submit it at any point throughout the year. But I think the earlier we get it submitted, the better. Especially given the timeline that we're looking at for trying to get this to potentially SPRINGTOWN meeting. It's not a super complicated grant application but I really, I'm such a big proponent of the more eyes on something the better. Yeah. For grammar, spelling, all of that fun stuff. So please folks, please take a look. Let me know if you have any edits, any questions. <v Speaker 1>I just, I looked at</v> and the only, I was just a little bit confused about what we're asking folks. Like at the amist there's really no direct costs associated. So is it just, we're <v Speaker 2>Just asking for technical,</v> literally technical assistance we want that would <v Speaker 1>Not pay for,</v> <v Speaker 2>No, that we would not be paying for.</v> The way that the technical assistance program works is generally fundings from the bar foundation, which is MAP PC's primary funding source supports the staff time that goes to these technical assistance projects. So we're essentially applying for a grant without actually applying for any specific dollar amounts. 'cause it will just, if MAPC likes our application and wants to accept our, they will determine what their staff time cost is and we'll work out, you know, what that funding would look like when it's coming in from the bar Foundation. We did a similar application for the commission members who are here. We worked with Ann Herps through m, my PC when we were doing the stormwater bylaw update in 2022. Also through the TAP program. So yeah, just really wanted to get that on folks' radars. I really would appreciate if folks could take a look. Let me know if you have any edits, even if you don't have any edits and we'll do maybe a more detailed walkthrough at the next meeting just to make sure that everybody is, is akay with the application of where it's at. The next thing I do have some things to show everyone an update on the Sudbury Aqueduct feasibility study. Folks might recall. We currently are working with two congressional earmarks, one for the constituent aqueduct trail. And this was gonna come under other updates, but I'll just provide it now since I'm talking about it. That work is at a little bit of a standstill right now. M a's requirements for where we can access with equipment and where we can do borings is dependent on us knowing where the actual aqueduct pipe is and how deep it is from the surface. I believe I updated the commission that I went out with Wes Weston and Sampson and DPW and we tried to locate these manholes and we were unable to do so. Weston and Samson reached out to Feldman, who's a geospatial firm about doing potentially some ground penetrating radar out there. They did a site visit together that I was not able to attend and they were able to locate another manhole along the aqueduct length that is not within our project area, which was able to confirm that those 1910 plans that we have are within a degree of accuracy still. What they also discovered is that there was an eight inch thick stone slab on top of the manhole cover that was locked, which is likely why we were not able to locate the manholes with the magnetic probe on our initial site walk. Feldman did provide a quote for the ground penetrating radar work that was, as one might expect expensive because we are on a real limited budget with this project. We did reach out to MWRA to see if they would be interested in partnering with the town on the GPR work, since it would be information that would benefit their records as well. <v Speaker 11>Do we need to know that on the subsurface structure</v> or do we just need to know where the manhole cover is? <v Speaker 2>We need to know, well if we can,</v> ID find the manhole covers, we can get the information that we need. <v Speaker 11>And MAG wouldn't do it even even a really strong</v> <v Speaker 2>No.</v> 'cause those stones, it's like concrete, it's just a slab of concrete on top of it. So I mean maybe if we had some <v Speaker 11>Reinforced</v> <v Speaker 2>It, I can pull up the picture</v> that I got from <v Speaker 11>Sometimes EM 20 ones, they're, they're a magnetic</v> form of subsurface structure. Fines can be better. <v Speaker 2>I might shoot you an email, Chris basic,</v> <v Speaker 11>See you're doing a a, a ambient</v> mag test. So you're looking for like the gap earth. Hmm. And sometimes rebar, lots of rebar inside of a concrete casing. We'll still get that, that draw enough to get a dip that you could say, eh, that might be it. I mean GPR will nail any structure that is underneath the dirt and <v Speaker 2>Oh yeah, Feldman was also able</v> to locate an 1852 water supply report to the water board. That actually was helpful in us figuring out where the pipe might be. Sorry, I'm just trying to find the right, <v Speaker 11>It'd be interesting to know what their cost for that GPR</v> <v Speaker 2>It, it was about, I'm, I'm pulling up the quote right now,</v> but I, if I estimate, I believe it was around $20,000. <v Speaker 11>20,000 that,</v> <v Speaker 2>And</v> <v Speaker 11>That's about a day it'll work.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yeah, it was, it was I believe a day's work plus some</v> construction support services. So again, we, we have reached out to MWRA to see if they're interested in partnering. They said that it needed to go up the chain to the higher ups. So we're just waiting to hear back from that. We did go back to Feldman and ask for a revised quote to really limit the scope to only absolutely what was necessary. And it was still $16,000. So <v Speaker 11>The mobilization costs are usually, it's,</v> <v Speaker 2>It's, that's the highest part once you</v> <v Speaker 11>Get 'em out of the, out of the shed there.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yeah. Oh, here's the photos.</v> That's what I, this is what I was looking for. So here's the, there's the stone slab on top of the manhole with all of the, how thick is it? So the, there was about four inches of dirt and duff on top of it and then you can see it's, it's six to eight inches depending on where on the slab you are. And they are all locked. So we're gonna have to have MWRA staff on site to cut the locks. <v Speaker 11>What kind of magnetic probes were you guys using?</v> <v Speaker 2>This is not the, I'm</v> not the right person to be asking this question. It was a green stick. <v Speaker 11>Yeah, yeah. No, I mean they're really</v> <v Speaker 2>Okay.</v> I was just about to say I'm yellow hoping that that's gonna be enough yellow stick. <v Speaker 11>Two of the yellow sticks in my garage.</v> The green stick I think is better than my yellow stick. <v Speaker 2>Yeah, so the, the cost of investigation just</v> to locate the manholes 4.4 and a half field days was $20,000 and then the construction support was another 4,300 on top of that. So I'm hoping that MWRA is gonna be willing to partner with us. If not, we're likely gonna have to either adjust the scope to only address surface treatments that don't require any machinery to construct or lose some other aspects of the scope. Likely permitting support and construction administration to cover those costs under our existing funding. I am still looking for other like small grant dollars that we can use to support this. You can't <v Speaker 11>Trails grant money would that you can't pull in a college,</v> I mean that state colleges can't compete with private, private entities though. I think Clark would love this. Clark University. Yeah, they've got a geophysics program. <v Speaker 2>That's great Ideas and keep them com</v> <v Speaker 11>They would, that's that's a perfect like learning tool.</v> <v Speaker 2>Oh that's great to know. Yeah. 'cause structure,</v> we're really just sort of sitting right now until we figure out what our next steps are on the Sudbury Aqueduct. We've made quite a bit more progress. Conservation Works has done a really fantastic job of doing some initial alignment reviews. Bob O'Connor and I went out and walked some of these alignments a couple of weeks ago to really, you know, you can look at 'em on the maps all you want, but when you actually get down in the field and you see, oh that person's house is actually only about a 15 feet away, maybe this isn't the best place for a trail. We did minimize our trespassing on private property and Bob presented to the open space advisory committee at their meeting last week. I can provide the commission with the recording of that. It was mostly just the same of what I'm gonna give you tonight just to give you guys an idea of the alignments that we are sort of favoring that Bob is going to now dive deeper into the deed research on to figure out what you know, who would be the owners we need to be contacting. Are there existing mechanisms that already would allow us to put a trail in that area? There's some existing preserved open space parcels, things like that. So looking at the west side of the aqueduct. So connecting down into the sherburne line currently the aqueduct formally ends at Cottage Street. There's no continuation of the alignment beyond that, at least formally under our eight M permit. When you get to Cottage Street, we do now have the newly constructed wayside Graystone trail that get you from cottage to Rockland Street. However, we do still have that gap then of Rockland Street to the Townline. So two of the options that Bob and I are, are sort of favoring is trying to access potentially through the existing Eversource right of way easement in that area with the overhead power lines. It is an Eversource easement, not an Eversource property. So that would still require easement going through the <v Speaker 11>Butters or for the</v> <v Speaker 2>No easement for Eversource,</v> the overhead wires are part of an easement. They don't own the property underneath it. So it would then require going through Eversource and also private property owners. So it is potentially a more complicated task, but it is, you know, a clear straight shot essentially from Rockland Street. You know, there is already some access to the power line corridor from the Morgan Drive neighborhood. And once the Sherburne town line is sort of right here where my cursor is on the screen right now, if folks can see that and these two properties in Sherburne are both considered, you know, quote unquote undevelopable because they don't have any frontage. So there's potential for negotiating CRS easements, things like that. So on the west side, that is one of the alignments that we are looking at. The other one that we are looking at is potentially using a similar entrance off of Rockland Street, but then cutting down the commission actually owns this odd little paper street parcel at the end of Wild Meadow Lane. So the, <v Speaker 11>It goes to the round rotary or the,</v> <v Speaker 2>The cul-de-sac cul-de-sac.</v> Yes. And so we could then cut down through that parcel. There are sidewalks along the entirety of Wild Meadow and then cut across the frontage, which brings you directly into the aqueduct alignment in Sherburne, which makes it a little bit more of a, an easier stretch. This does still involve private property. All of these are gonna involve private property owner relationships. But this one is maybe a little bit simpler because we are dealing this 1 29 parcel id. Right on the corner here is a DCR parcel. And this, the remainder of this frontage along Everett Street is all owned by one property owner. And these lots along the front here are, it's all one lot. So it might be a smoother process. So those are the two alignments that we're trying to look at on the western side of things. We did also exploring, you know, just having people walk down Rockland Street to Everett Street to make this connection. But Rockland Street does not have any sidewalks and isn't really an ideal place to be sending folks. So we really are trying to focus on alignments that keep folks off of unsafe roadways. When we're looking at the eastern end of things, we're primarily looking at the stretch. There's sort of two chunks of missing connection going from Memorial School to Union Street and then from the end of the Brook Street area we get all the way to Leach Lane. And then it's just that last stretch across Leach Lane to the Wellesley town line. Bob and I explored a couple of options. This is I currently, what we are considering our preferred alignment between Memorial School and Union Street. This takes you up through the preserved open space parcel associated with the Davis Brook neighborhood, which already has active trail systems on the, the northern side of it as part of the Eisen manger trail corridor and does curve around the back here. So this would be be a new trail, but on a parcel where there's existing trails where we have a, a good relationship with the homeowners association. And then it would take you across Woodland Street, which is the one sort of contention point of this particular alignment up Scarsdale Road, which is another very quiet sidewalk cul-de-sac up Libby Road. And then across three private property parcels. We've got one parcel here that has limited frontage on Union Street, so is technically considered Undevelopable and another fully landlocked parcel, which could be developable with combination to another parcel that does have frontage. And then this last parcel before you get onto Union Street 1 23 Union is a church property. The first Christian science church, there's two, right? There's a Lutheran church and a Christian science church, I believe this is the Christian Science Church. They have a, there's a very healthy wooded buffer between the church property and the abutting residential properties that we could potentially take advantage of in connecting folks out to Union Street. Once you get to Union Street, you've got the entrance to Algonquin right here, Algonquian, which gives you access to the existing tack wombat trail. So again, not necessarily trying to create new trail connections, but direct folks to existing trail connections that we have. Great. <v Speaker 1>And over the complete trail link, if you,</v> if we were successful in <v Speaker 2>Doing so, if the full Sudbury Aqueduct was connected,</v> it would get us all the way from the Wellesley Townline to the Sherburne Townline through in theory as much offroad trail connections as possible. <v Speaker 1>And where at the Wellesley line into the</v> Crosstown Trail or <v Speaker 2>So Wellesley, the Sudbury Aqueduct is not a fully</v> completed alignment in Wellesley, unlike the constituent aqueduct, which is very well maintained throughout Wellesley. So this would not be as much of a regional connection as the constituent aqueduct would be, but I, because Sherburne is working on their section of the aqueduct right now, would still definitely open things up in terms of connectivity. <v Speaker 1>But it's not all on the Aqueduct property,</v> <v Speaker 2>Right?</v> No, the Aqueduct property. So once you hit Memorial School, farm Hill Road and, and Union Street are large hills. So the aqueduct goes underground at that point. So it was o only ever M-M-W-R-A only ever held easements over that section of the pipe alignment. They never owned any real property. So there's no eight M functionality to be granted over that section of the aqueduct alignment because it went underground. So they didn't actually need to hold any surface land. This is the alternate path from Memorial School to Union Street. It goes through one private property owner and then puts you onto the sidewalks of Farm Hill Road before then cutting through the, these two parcels are, are co-owned by the same property owner. So could be a simpler alignment of getting to Union Street. The one benefit I think of this alignment over the other alignment is that this puts you out onto Union right at the Brook Street intersection almost. But from a pedestrian crossing standpoint, that section of Union Street is less safe than the location at 1 23 Union Street, which is a straighter shot of Union Street. So you can see you've got sort of two curves that you're coming around here at the Brooks Street intersection versus the length approaching this point on Union Street is Mu is more of a straight shot. But that would all involve public safety discussions and the safety committee, again, the funding we have right now is just for the feasibility study. There's a lot more steps to come after on this particular project. And then connecting us from Union Street to the Aqueduct at the end of Brook Street is we're primarily just gonna be using the existing Taka Wombat Trail. We have an existing trail that's maintained out there. It needs a little bit of maintenance. So the Poison Ivy has taken over some sections, but we have the trail mapped at that point. This also is just another version of the Taka Wombat Trail connecting around the, the water tower and then, oh, did I fail to? And then the, the Leach Lane connection is really, leach Lane is a private way and there's some fencing that's installed. It would just require negotiations with the property owner to provide that access if they were open to it. It's the Honeywell farm. Well, <v Speaker 11>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 2>Trying not to look at David. No, I'm trying. They</v> <v Speaker 11>Filmed the movie up there, right?</v> That's where they filmed the movie near there out. Yeah. Yep. We can't <v Speaker 2>Discuss that.</v> But again, because Wellesley doesn't have the connection that that last little piece is, is almost sort of the lowest priority on my list. I, <v Speaker 11>I think, yeah, that's what I was gonna ask</v> is where does it take you? <v Speaker 2>I think getting that Western connection is</v> so much more the priority since Sherburne has now started work on their section. I would love to be able to make that connection in coordination with their project. But this was really just an update to the commission. Bob's gonna be, like I said, diving into the more deed research side of things now. And I'll hopefully have another update for the commission in a couple of weeks about what it looks like in terms of property owners, the numbers of property owners that we would be dealing with, any existing mechanisms that we might have. And Bob is also gonna provide a, a very rough and preliminary cost estimate for what it would potentially cost to take or, or purchase easements along those private property parcels. <v Speaker 11>Well, let me know if you need any, if you need me</v> to look at any scopes of work for the <v Speaker 2>I will, I will, I will touch base</v> with you on the constituent aqueduct side of things. Yeah. Skin cat. Yes. And I might actually, I might see if you're available for a meeting that we have scheduled. If, if you're interested in joining that, that could be very helpful. The only other updates that I have at this point are we have our final MEPA certificate for the South Natick dam removal. So we are through our MEPA review and we are currently working on drafting our 4 0 1 water quality permit with DEP. Once we file that permit, we will shortly thereafter file our US Army Corps of Engineer Permit and then I would expect sometime in the spring next year that project to be before this body for permitting under the local, under the conservation commission's jurisdiction, the state and the local wetlands regulations they've done. <v Speaker 11>What's the plan for the sediment testing? So,</v> <v Speaker 2>Sediment testing has been completed. They've done it and</v> <v Speaker 11>They've got</v> <v Speaker 2>The, so we did, I think it was a total</v> of 18 sediment testing locations over the course of three years behind the impoundment area and downstream of the impoundment area. The soil was much cleaner than we ever anticipated. It being really some of the, actually I think it was Mercury and lead actually tested higher downstream of the impoundment area than behind the dam itself, which was rather interesting. So our current process has been, and what was listed in our EIR, it was a passive sediment release technique with a sediment monitoring and management plan following the deconstruction that'll be reviewed more closely under the 4 0 1 water quality permitting process. But we have been meeting with David Wong and Kyle all at DEP sort of throughout the process to make sure that we weren't totally off base. Yeah. So yeah, we're through our MEPA review and we are actually gonna be starting permitting soon. Jillian and I are also now starting to explore grants for the actual construction phase. We're looking at the, the NOAA Fish passage grants that was just released as well as the FEMA dam removal program. We're waiting for that funding announcement to come. We have met with some of the NOAA staff and with some of the FEMA staff just trying to really make sure that we're not barking up a tree that isn't actually gonna give us the funding that we need. We did submit an expression of interest to the MVP program, but given the dollar amounts that MVP is generally awarding, we are not favoring that as our grant for funding the construction phase because we won't get the full project costs from MVP essentially with Noah and fema, we have the potential to get the full project cost with the appropriate staff time match for the project. <v Speaker 11>They did the abuts property line gain.</v> Right. I mean if the river moves back to a certain, yeah, <v Speaker 2>So that's been part of the h and h modeling.</v> We have a rough idea of where the river is gonna channelize itself, but we won't really know until the dam comes down and the water does what the water's gonna do. But it's been estimated the way <v Speaker 11>The deeds are written, are they written to a,</v> a watermark or are they written, <v Speaker 2>Sorry.</v> So it varies for the water. Each deed along the water is different. The town has not taken any steps to doing deed research or landowner research because the reality is that the land that is exposed will be the private property owners. Exactly. But where the river is estimated to end up, you can almost see it if you look at aerials from drought years where that the sort of vegetation and the algae has grown in most deeply. But it is estimated that the river will sort of pull slightly more towards the pleasant street side of things as it then comes around the bend of the dam. I'm seeing if we've got any of the good aerials that show Rich has done some really good drone flyovers where you can see the, the vegetation growth really, really clearly. <v Speaker 14>Let's see if the 2023 area will show it</v> <v Speaker 2>Now.</v> You can, you can sort of see it here, sort of where that, that deeper channel exists currently, but the town is still committed to supporting the private property owners with invasive species management. The only other update that I have for folks is that I've been working with Mike still on the, the Backyard Buffer pilot program that we're hoping to do. We've got some committed residents from Wellesley. We've got one, one fully committed resident in Natick, one committed resident whose property may or may not be the right fit based on the current invasives overgrowth. And I'm gonna be reaching out to some property owners along Beaver Dam Brook as well. No traction yet in Dover or Framingham, but I think Wellesley was my, I knew Brandon was gonna be very involved and very interested. So Schmidt? Yes. <v Speaker 11>Latin resident.</v> <v Speaker 2>Oh yes. He's, I actually ran into him</v> at the gas station the other day too. So those are my two big updates. The select board will be, or maybe they did last night, get an update on the dam removal process. And tho those are all available on the project webpage if the commission wants to see. But our, our cost tracking from the Stantec study in 2022 is actually a little over what the estimated construction costs are from GZA at this point in time where we're sitting right around the 60% design mark right now heading towards 75. Wow. <v Speaker 11>That's good. Great.</v> <v Speaker 2>And that's all I have for folks.</v> <v Speaker 11>Excellent. It's gonna</v> <v Speaker 4>Look like at Ubon when the,</v> <v Speaker 2>So that area is far enough upstream that there are not any</v> anticipated visible changes in that area. The the primary impacts are, are estimated to be from the, the existing spillway to the, the back edge of the impoundment area, which is roughly, lemme just get my, my map back up. So <v Speaker 11>The you're gonna change the velocity a little bit.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So, so the primary changes will be seen up to,</v> you know, roughly about this point where that red pedestrian bridge is that crosses the river. There will be some slightly more visible elevation changes as you sort of, but once you hit this bend here, the changes will be so minor that they really won't be be perceptible. It's basically <v Speaker 4>The original channel almost.</v> <v Speaker 2>Exactly. Yeah.</v> So there will be, we, you know, we estimate obviously the, the largest change is gonna be seen in the, in this impoundment area here. I, for some reason I already emailed Rich about this, this area where these trails are shown, that's all land, it's wetlands, but the wetland imagery layer is a little messed up right now. So it's showing up as open water. What's <v Speaker 4>Gonna happen below the dam?</v> <v Speaker 2>Absolutely nothing. I mean, the sediment will be</v> released in a passive manner. So we'll monitor that for the contractor will monitor it for six months and then the town will be obligated for another year after that. I'm <v Speaker 4>Thinking more over, over a period of time,</v> depending on heavy rains and things like that, what's gonna happen around water street and <v Speaker 11>There</v> <v Speaker 1>Probably the same thing. So should</v> <v Speaker 11>Have more capacity.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So in theory the, the run</v> of the River dam is not a flood store flood control structure. However, once the impoundment area drains, you are essentially re exposing historic floodplains, which in theory, you know, the water will go to those floodplains before it's going well. I mean, unfortunately a lot of the properties on Water Street are in the floodplain, <v Speaker 11>But the homeowners need to know that, that when they start</v> to re repopulate it. <v Speaker 2>Exactly. And so we will be Delta,</v> we have already submitted, <v Speaker 11>What is it</v> <v Speaker 1>Called?</v> But the risk didn't change for the people below? <v Speaker 2>No, the, the flood elevation will not change.</v> We, the town will have to work with FEMA to get a letter of map revision, likely once the spillway is removed, because it is, you know, demarcated and does adjust the flood elevation. <v Speaker 4>So they can still put the casino at the end</v> of Water Street. Sure. <v Speaker 2>Well we own the property at the end of Water Street,</v> <v Speaker 4>So I know.</v> Well, I mean, and you just go have a nice bridge going over there to the casino. It's <v Speaker 13>Gonna have a herring</v> <v Speaker 4>Festival.</v> It would be great soon. <v Speaker 13>Herring Festival. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>You think that the fish will come back up River</v> <v Speaker 2>Or the, the removal of the spillway connect we get,</v> we gotta get, we connect some. Yeah, that's true. That that's gonna be the big one there. This dam does reconnect two cold water fisheries that are currently disconnected, reconnecting at 19 and a half miles of the Charles River. <v Speaker 11>Wow.</v> <v Speaker 1>Where's the next dam? Down</v> <v Speaker 2>River.</v> The next dam down river is in, isn't Dover Needham Needham or Dover? No, sorry, Dover would be upstream. Oh, <v Speaker 11>But there's there's at least three up, aren't there?</v> <v Speaker 2>We've got more upstream. Yeah, one</v> <v Speaker 4>Than one, but there's a couple</v> fairly close downstream there. <v Speaker 11>Oh, by that restaurant, right?</v> <v Speaker 4>I'm trying, you</v> <v Speaker 11>Talking about</v> <v Speaker 2>And what's the, the worst thing is I was just meeting</v> with the Mill <v Speaker 4>Falls would be,</v> <v Speaker 13>Listen,</v> if we can't get herring back in 10 Natick again, I'm gonna be very upset. <v Speaker 11>No idea what You</v> <v Speaker 4>Can get it canned.</v> That's the only way you're gonna get it. <v Speaker 11>He shuts dumping. That's chum. Yep. Chum.</v> <v Speaker 2>I can figure out what the next dam is downstream.</v> I believe there's a, a small run of the River dam in Needham. That is our next one downstream. And then the Watertown Dam is the next substantial flood control dam structure downstream of our dam. But I know that there's one, maybe two more run of the river dams between us and Watertown. <v Speaker 11>The one, this is the one that's over by</v> that architectural firm, right? <v Speaker 2>Moody's uhs.</v> <v Speaker 11>S Seko No,</v> <v Speaker 1>SAIC.</v> <v Speaker 11>Seko. Seko?</v> <v Speaker 2>No, it's</v> <v Speaker 11>Sac. Oh my</v> <v Speaker 2>God.</v> Oh, this is awful. Is <v Speaker 1>There a dam? Walham, but yeah.</v> <v Speaker 11>Charles,</v> <v Speaker 2>Is it Sakas?</v> <v Speaker 11>Yes. I think it's</v> <v Speaker 2>Sakai. S-A-I-K-I-A down</v> <v Speaker 13>By Norm Bega.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yes. Norm Bega. Right at the Moody Street.</v> I love Nor Bega. You ever <v Speaker 13>Danced the Norm Vega?</v> You ever danced back in the day at Norm Bega? <v Speaker 4>Way, way back that.</v> But that's a long stretch for those herring. <v Speaker 13>It is, but</v> <v Speaker 11>They're,</v> <v Speaker 13>Yeah, they'll make it, they'll make,</v> <v Speaker 4>I used to get the herring at literally at bu.</v> <v Speaker 13>Really? Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 4>Well, I mean, look, it's wide open.</v> <v Speaker 13>Yeah, I guess that's true.</v> <v Speaker 1>All right, well with</v> that being said, in, in, you know, respecting the herring <v Speaker 11>Mal,</v> <v Speaker 1>I'll take a, a motion to adjourn.</v> <v Speaker 4>So</v> <v Speaker 1>Moved. Second. Second. All all in favor? Aye.</v> <v Speaker 2>I took David as the second.</v> <v Speaker 1>Doug, thank you very much for, for joining.</v> <v Speaker 15>Thank you. My pleasure.</v> And have a wonderful Thanksgiving to everyone. <v Speaker 1>Yeah, you too,</v> <v Speaker 2>Too, Doug.</v> <v Speaker 1>All right. And we are done. Thank you. Great.</v>