Okay, so this meeting this meeting will be recorded by the town administrator to provide later for the public.

If anyone is recording or videotaping, they need to acknowledge at this time.

I did see Helen, I think, from Born Enterprise on the line.

Okay.

If anyone from the public wishes to access the meetings, they can do so by calling the follow-in conference line 1929 2056, Zoom meeting ID 851080823, password, watershed all caps.

The Zoom chat will not be monitored.

Participants who wish to speak must raise the hand icon until the chair asks them to unmute all items within this meeting agenda are subject to deliberation and votes.

And all right.

So short agenda this evening is to discuss our watershed permit.

This is our watershed permit workshop.

I'm going to give it to you, Marlene, to discuss the award and scope of work, et cetera.

Thank you.

So as I informed the board in the fall, I did apply for a nitrogen sensitive area grant from DEP.

And I learned in late January that we were successful.

So DEP has provided 100,000 to get us started on this process.

And as part of that grant award, we our obligation is to commit to spending the money by the end of the fiscal year.

So in order to do that, I'd like to move right into the scope of work and expectations for selecting a consulting team.

So part of the challenge here is that we don't have very clear guidance about what's required for watershed permit.

So we um there's a very basic application on the DEP website.

However, most of the information will be provided through supporting reports and technical um memos that have to be developed by a professional engineer.

So we in many ways are going to have to um kind of figure this out as we go along.

And what I would recommend is that we take a phased approach to hiring our consultant and signing a contract.

So I I do not recommend that we try to figure out everything that we're going to need all the way through submitting a watershed permit.

Um an accurate cost.

And that makes me uncomfortable.

I I'm sure it makes a number of the board members uncomfortable that we're kind of going into this without knowing how much it's gonna cost and what we're getting ourselves into.

But what I recommend is that we issue an RFP or an RFQ, um, excuse me, an RFQ.

And um we set it up intentionally from the beginning to be executed in phases.

And instead of trying to jump right into putting together a watershed management plan, um, I think our first phase should uh be kind of some background information so we all truly understand what our targets are.

Um if I may, I'm gonna just take a minute to go through kind of what I foresee or would I recommend that we ask for in phase one.

Um I recommend that the work that we cover in what I'm calling phase one of the contract be um very clearly delineating the watershed boundaries and creating the map and coverage area so that we're um crystal clear about what is in the watershed and what is not in the watershed for both of the watersheds for um again, since Gutiague and for Finney's Harbor.

And all of these things will be for both of the watershed that I'm going to talk about, both watersheds that I'm going to talk about.

Early on the DEP is going to require that we understand and describe the water quality quality conditions.

So we're going to need to do some analysis of the current water quality and also compile historical water quality analysis data.

So both of these watersheds have TL TMDL numbers that were derived from MEP reports.

And MEP is the Massachusetts estuary project.

And some of the associated tasks that we're going to need to work through are we're going to need to determine the water use data range, and we're going to need to obtain concurrence from DEP on that.

So they're going to we're going to need to understand how far back into the past for water for water use data we're going to need to analyze.

So we really should talk to DEP beforehand and be very clear about these are the this is the start of the data we're going to look at, and this is the end of the data that we're going to look at.

And this time period for water use data is going to be what we're going to base our decision on.

In the near future, DEP will require annual reporting as part of the watershed permit framework.

And a lot of that annual reporting will be based on water usage.

So we are have an independent water district, we have an external partner there that we're going to need to work with closely because we as a town don't actually have a water department and don't have access to that data in internally.

And then this is going to be something that we're going to have to maintain these updates on an annual basis with at least a five-year report along the way.

Can the town do this analysis in-house, or is this something that's going to be an ongoing consulting contract that is going to need to be established?

So those are all kind of early questions to sort out as part of the conversation around updating the nitrogen load.

And then these updated load numbers, we need to make sure that we project and anticipate any increased load from now from today, or whenever we we sign this contract through the planning period.

Some of those might be associated with IA septic system installations.

So all of all of that needs to be taken into account within the watersheds.

So I think there's going to need to be a lot of effort, a lot of time devoted to making sure that we are not doing something that is going to result in our the DEP or MEPA or the Cape Cod Commission not being able to approve it at the end.

So even though we're I'm not recommending we jump straight into developing the watershed management plans, we should understand in the back of our minds that our neighboring towns and the base may also be partners we need to coordinate with.

relations and and public um outreach and education so that there's regular communications there's a reliable sort of a reliable um place to go to to find the most current information and to understand what's happening um so in addition i think from the beginning we need to work with our consultants to set up whatever we do um from the beginning to try to understand our monitoring requirements so as part of a watershed permit a monitoring plan will be a monitoring plan of some sort will be required um and these are you know these are conversations that our consulting team and and we will have to have to understand is the monitor what scale is the monitoring plan taking place is it at the watershed scale or is it going to be at a subwatershed scale uh have we have we established well defined monitoring goals do we do we know what we're monitoring for and do we know how to monitor for them are there clear and unambiguous water quality parameters that we're walk we're working um within what is the monitoring methodology like how will the monitoring take place what are what is the frequency where will we sample how often will we sample um and on what times you know on what cadence and and for what duration will we be sampling and monitoring and then how do we how do we kind of fact check the monitoring to to establish some quality control and some quality assurance so I think we're at you know I think this is going to be a very a very long time um time consuming labor intensive process and I think we I am trying to think from the beginning how to set things up for the long term for the duration of the entire planning process.

So we don't have to go back and um redo work or undo work or or put different things in place.

But my recommendation is that if you if you agree with this approach well one I'd like to if I'd like to hear if you agree with this approach or if you don't agree with this approach what would you like to do differently um and if you do agree with this approach I would like you to to kind of vote to direct me to put this together in an RFQ that I can bring back to you for your final approval and before I put it out kind of in the public for people to respond to and we can talk about the time frame um as far as once I have that all scheduled scheduled out as part of the RFQ.

But tonight I'd really like to understand if you agree with this approach or if you would like to do something differently.

Thank you Marlene for that um so I guess I'll start with my fellow select board I'll go around to um Peter and um Jean first to see thoughts ideas changes well I it's this sounds like a reasonable approach to me it sounds like a very um thoughtful approach which is a good one considering that we're as you say kind of testing the waters and doing this as we go um so I think what you proposed tonight is a good plan.

Thank you.

Peter I concur I mean the phase in approach and taking this low is probably the best way to do it.

I don't want to and that's going to too far down a road and then all of a sudden we have to redo it as Rileen said earlier.

So I I do support her way of thinking of how to move forward.