Today's February 11th. This is a meeting of the water quality management committee. Um, one quick announcement. Uh, I am recording this meeting because we no longer have a person uh that produces the minutes. I'm going to test out my
ability to use a program to record the meeting and produce notes. We'll see how it goes. Okay? But I just wanted to let you know that it is being recorded. Um, if you have an objection to that, uh, I don't know what to do about it, but just letting you know. Um, first item on the
agenda is for us to go into executive session. And of course, I've immediately lost the piece of paper I'm supposed to have. Uh, here we go. Um, we are going to go into an executive session
um to address a complaint under the open meeting law that was filed by Ron Zwag. Um, I declare that the open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the public body's bargaining or litigating position
under chapter general law, chapter 30A, section 21A3. Um, and we will reconvene to open session upon the conclusion of the executive session.
Okay, with that, uh, I need a vote to go into executive session. >> So moved. Second. >> Uh, quick question. Does that have >> roll call? >> Roll call. So, this has to be a roll call vote. Um, >> but how do you vote? >> Yes. >> I vote yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, uh, it's a unanimous unanimous group of yeses to go into executive session. Entirely appropriate to close session to discuss the open meeting hall.
Uh second item on the agenda is a presentation of a proposed plan to prepare an ENF for the water the townwide watershed plan. Uh it's going to be by Amy Lol. Um and then we need a discussion and a vote to support the
proposed plan. and Amy's working on a fairly tight deadline and there is a much like there is on the outfall a small group that gets together once a month to keep track of what's going on. Um and then the expectation is that
either Kristen or Amy will show up at this board when there is something substantive on the watershed plan to explain. home. I put a request into John uh to to be the person uh on on the uh
sort of I don't know if you call it a working group or just aformational meeting once a month. John's on the one with the outfall. You're on the urine diversion. You're on the shellfish. I don't know what you're on. Oh, you're on everything. Anyways, so that's where we're at.
>> Okay. Um thank you. I'm Amy L, the waste uh foundless wastewater superintendent and um we'll this is we're at the near the beginning of this project, but it's time to come and talk with you about it. Um a reminder about the watershed permit
regulations which are sort of have changed the the uh requirements for um wastewater planning, wershed management planning. Um and um those regulations were passed back in 2023 and we talked
about it a fair amount then. Uh those regulations designated the water sheds to ponds with total maximum daily loads for nitrogen as uh nitrogen sensitive areas. So, Falmouth's um
um natural resource nitrogen sensitive areas are highlighted in blue on this figure, which you can see is most of Falmouth uh but not all of Falmouth. So, what's in blue is the wersheds to the ponds that have um uh nitrogen TMDLs.
So, I refer to these as state designated nitrogen sensitive areas. Um there are a couple of other areas in town that um for example the board of health has looked at requiring IAS in. Um but these are the state designated nitrogen
sensitive areas that will be planning uh that this plan will include a um a a plan to meet the TMDL for. Um so when this when the state established these NSAs these nitrogen sensitive areas it
required towns to either um install have have IAS installed on all the properties within 5 years or for the towns to prepare watershed management plans and apply for watershed permits for all of them all of the NSAs
by 2030. And as you I'm sure remember that Falmouth committed to preparing the watershed plans and applying for permits by 2030. Uh so those plans will still involve IAS but it doesn't involve IAS on every property that is not sewered in
FM. Uh so one draft watershed man wershed management plan for all of FMA's state designated nitrogen sensitive areas will include a plan to meet the TMDL uh for each watershed. uh it will define the
sewer areas and the IIA areas in each of those wersheds. There's been a lot of discussion uh the town has done an enormous amount of planning in the past um for some of these wersheds and in the water quality management committee meetings over the last year and a half
or so. Uh Kristen Rothen from ScienceWarses came in and presented a lot of IIA options. So we're not starting at the beginning with this. We have a lot of background. We have a a big start on this analysis, but that those recommendations had not been
finalized previously or had not been presented as an overall plan and and sent out to everybody to uh review and discuss. Uh so we're going to define those areas and phasing and schedule for each through 2050. Um and there we will
it's not just we're not going to just start with one obviously there will be a discussion of alternatives in there and then um and then out of that evaluation will come a recommended plan. Um the plan will also identify other nutrient reduction plan components in each
watershed. You are very familiar with those others as well. Um based on that plan we'll provide an overall cost estimate. It's a planning level cost estimate, not a detailed cost, not a bid ready cost estimate, but
um an overall cost estimate and schedule so that the town can better prepare for overall project financing. Um we will be coordinating efforts among town departments, in particular the planning department, the board of health and the
water quality management committee, not a town department, but a committee that is deeply involved with this. And so I've lost track of what I've said. Board of Health Planning um and water quality management committee as well as the rest of the DPW because planning for uh these
major infrastructure projects uh needs to needs to take into account other work that's going on in other DPW divisions. Um this plan will also be phased and um and adaptive. So the idea is it will involve monitoring and opportunities for
adjustment based on how things go over the next over the planning period. Uh Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act or MEPA review. Uh the watershed management plan is required to go through MEPA review because it exceeds
certain MEEPA thresholds including uh more than 10 miles of potential sewer installation. Um the MEPA process is the process that's environmental. It's state it's the state environmental review process. So the first step is an
environmental notification form and a draft environmental impact report and a final you're familiar with that as well. Uh we're planning to submit the ENF the environmental notification form to MEPA by March 2nd of this year. So coming up
very soon to begin the environmental review process basically to kick this process off. Uh the ENF is a standard form that's used for all projects across the state from like putting in a a dock
large dock to you know building a massive sewer system. So it's a standard form that doesn't apply equally well across all projects. But we the what we're planning to do is provide just that standard form plus the outline of our watershed management plan and DI
DEIR for regulatory review. So part of the reason I'm here today is to uh I'm seeking a water quality management vote to send that ENF which includes the form and the outline for a watershed management plan and Draft
environmental impact report to the select board and to the town manager for signature from whence it would go to MEPA uh for regulatory review. Um funds were appropriated at November 2025 town meeting for this draft
watershed management plan and draft EIR. The scope of work for this project is shared. There are two separate agreements. one with science wares so that Kristen we can take advantage of all of Kristen's background and work on
this um subject and uh GHD has an another scope and the two are very closely linked but they have uh separate tasks within this um in the draft plan and draft watershed management plan and
DEI are are to be submitted by the end of 2026 uh we actually have it in our scheduled now for November, but by the end of 2026, um we I anticipated an additional request in fiscal year 2027 for funds to
finalize the plan and and EIR. Um and then the watershed permit applications would follow. First, Little Pond and Great Pond, as you probably remember or you know, those are furthest along in every way and um also were the first that we committed to applying for
permits for. uh then the others would come on or before the dates that were previously the town previously committed to through the end of 2029. So the I um the draft outline for the watershed management plan and DEIR was
was sent to you. I apologize not until this morning late last night something like that. That was that's on me. Um and uh so I'm summarizing it here. Um the begins obviously with a project description uh project background. Again
we're building on a lot of previous planning work uh to evaluate wersheds and plan for nitrogen reduction. Uh there's also significant public participation and outreach um as part of this process. There are inv there are
state designated environmental justice areas within those planning areas. Uh so we will be reaching out um to make sure we're communicating with uh with people in those areas and with representatives of those areas. Um again I mentioned the
various boards and committees that we'll be talking with or presenting to as appropriate and there will be other public presentations and notices. The MEPA or environmental review process has official public um notification and and
and review processes. There will be additional communication beyond beyond that. Um also in the beginning of this document we need we are going to talk about the relationship between the watershed planning process and the outfall process. These are going on
simultaneously and they both are getting environmental impact review. Um the outfall is a little ahead as far as environmental impact review because that's a big long project that we really you know we needed to to to get moving
on its own. Um the two planning documents will both will reference each other and and talk about the relationships. Uh but they are separate documents. um you we submitted an an environmental notification form for the outfall a
while back and received the comments on that and are now working on a a draft environmental impact report for that project. Uh but obviously the big the biggest connection between the two is related to wastewater flows and the timing of those
those flows. section two. Um, so the the the basic some of the material in this outline is required under the regulations and that's part of why we have to prepare this plan is that there
are some requirements in the regulations that we haven't completed before. So we are going to update and summarize the water quality data and condition for all nitrogen sensitive areas. Kristen's done uh a great job uh on that and is is
quite a ways nearly done on so you know we had when the mass those Massachusetts estruaries reports were many of them issued more than 20 years ago and there's been additional data and um so um Kristen's been uploading or excuse me
updating the the water quality data that we have and presenting you know the the trend over time as well as um updating the nitrogen load projections or nitrogen load estimates. Um, so to start with, we have
what was in the Master ES Massachusetts estuaries project reports and TMDLs when they were issued and Kristen is working to update those to current conditions based on water use over the last several
years, 21 to 24 water use data. Um, and this is a useful exercise because in in one one advantage is it allows us to look at where we are now as far as uh
water use compared to the buildout that was projected then. And um so we you know we know what the water use was when the MEP reports were were generated and we know what the water use is now. And we can see where the now is compared to
what was projected as buildout 20 years from from when those were were made, which is right about now. So it also we are also looking to update these to the 20-year planning horizon. You'll notice that I'm saying I'm calling the planning
horizon 2030 to 2050, not 25 or 26 to 2050. And um we we are calling that the planning horizon because that's really the implementation time frame for these um the watershed permits will be
submitted by by the beginning of 2030 and um the um the this this allows us to start our our our planning horizon when we're actually we have new projects going in in moving forward. Um then from
all that we you will be estimating the nitrogen load updating the estimate of nitrogen load reduction uh for each watershed to meet the TMDLs. Um for all 14 nitrogen sensitive areas we'll have current and future nitrogen
removal targets. Uh again the growth projections can be re-evaluated over time uh based on actual water use. Section three is a description of management measures to meet the nitrogen
TMDLs. You are familiar with this uh this process the alternatives analysis. We've the town has been through this a number of times. The difference is um that we're looking at a a larger aerial with all of these nitrogen sensitive
areas and um and we have uh you know we have a lot of background information on each of these. So according to the MEPA process we have to include a no action alternative and what and ultimately what the impacts of that are. We'll look at alternative nitrogen management strategies, conventional nitrogen
management strategies, and then consideration uh for future um future requirements. Uh we'll identify TMDL compliance plan options and conduct conduct a screening analysis
that you'll be hearing again about these by that time. This is not an independent um this is not something we come away from and do and come back. We'll we'll come back with the the screening of these options and communicate that. Section four is is um outlining the
recommended compliance approach for the 14 nitrogen sensitive areas and includes a nitrogen load reduction and uh the percent of the 20-year planning horizon removal requirement that will be met for all the wersheds. It's not going to be 100% for all of them. Uh obviously the
goal is to get 100% uh where we can but something like great pond will likely require more than 20 years to accomplish. We'll also cover responsible management entities and I know that's uh something this board this committee has a lot of interest in in interest in and
will and will be discussed later on your agenda. Uh there will be a planning level project cost um for the compliance plan and that will allow a uh more specific
uh discussion a more a more specific discussion of financing plans um for for this overall project. Uh get um I attended a a joint meeting of the board of health and the water quality manage or excuse me the select
board on Monday as many of you did and they were talking about financing options um and the interest in outlining those. We will be doing that um as part of this process and speaking uh publicly
about that uh implementation schedule. We'll have an adaptive management fra framework which means there will be phases for implementation and monitoring along the way so that the implementation can be adjusted as we go along. Um there
also for specific technologies we need to show that we have a plan for demonstration testing and acceptance or abandonment of selected uh technologies and decision- making on implementation of future phases.
Um, we also need to cover permitting and jurisdiction, consistency with the Cape Cod Commission section 208 plan, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and uh, coastal vulnerability. That's all part of the environmental impact evaluations. Uh, again, environmental
justice, communic community in input and impact is part of the discussion and environmental impacts. I did not I'm not getting into a detailed list of environmental impact review here. There is, as you probably saw in the outline, there are a lot of topics to be covered under environmental impact review.
Section five and six uh section the section 61 findings and mitigation measures are part of the MEEPA uh requirement um part of the MEEPA requirements and then of course a conclusion. So, um, again, I was I'm here today to seeking a vote to send the
draft the environmental notification form, including the outline for the draft wershed management plan and DEIR to the select board and then to the town manager so it could be signed and submitted to the state with the
real meat of the discussion coming after that. >> Thank you, Amy. Um I need to ask this board a procedural question. Um from every meeting that I have attended,
we have allowed members of the public that are present comment. We have a new one in that there are members of the public who are not present and have forwarded comments by email. Um,
I I think we should develop I'll put on the agenda for the next time around to develop a policy whether you must be in attendance or not. But I guess for the interim I would ask for a vote to at least take up the two items raised in an email uh and include them
into today's uh comments. Okay. >> You will be allowing comments from the people who are here. >> Oh yes. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure you weren't doing just this and not >> I I just I don't want to when we get past this board's
viewpoint of what Amy's just done and then open it up to the public. I didn't want to raise it at the last minute that I have comments by email. Um but I but they would like to put on the next agenda to develop a policy whether you whether we feel you must be present
>> but ad hoc today I'll make a motion that we consider >> allow >> off off premises comments or whatever we want to technically call it >> second. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying >> question is that just question please sir before the vote before I vote are
these related to agenda items or some okay >> one of those related to what we just heard the other one's related to the Saxon project >> okay >> I I vote in favor >> okay all those signify by saying I >> I thank you
>> so um Ed comments what we just heard from Amy >> I think it's it's a good compact fasttrack approach. I know a lot of work's gone into it. Um excited to get the process moving and
comply with the state regulations. There'll be a long comment process going forward for all of the public once it's posted in the environmental monitor. I think they give them 30 days to comment and then get a decision from the commissioner or whatever the or the
secretary of environmental affairs, I guess. So, good work. Let's go. >> Steve, uh Amy, am I correct that what we're voting on is just what you actually presented on the screen and describe, not any background documents.
>> It's to uh send an outline >> which you showed. >> I did. I summarized the outline. I mean that's that's a that's a summary of the outline but yes to send the outline >> but there's nothing in it specifying particular technologies or amounts
thereof. >> It's an outline of sorry >> there are no decisions in the outline or uh you you you were forwarded the the outline with this. It's a what no more
than four page outline. Um and and it's it's a literally a table of contents for the watershed management plan and DEIR which I summarized here in the slides. John >> um
Amy and I guess Kristen you've done I think a well organized wellthoughtout job here and I'm fully on board with carrying it forward to the select board. I just I'm thinking of the work that's lying ahead for everybody involved in
this in the next 20 years. It's just it's a big deal obviously. Thank you. >> Thank you. So a lot of so some of this work has begun as as as well like the analys some of the analyses that we need
to do like I was saying water quality uh data analysis updates and loaded you know there's there's work going on that needs to be done. Thank you, >> Jonathan. >> I guess I had a clarification question. I mean, I think the outline looks great,
but it's the timeline that goes with it. You mentioned the watershed permits wouldn't be applied for till 2030, but is the plan to just group all 14 together. Before they were five blocks of of um wershed permits that were going to be done, we we grouped the different
wersheds. But then we mentioned last fall or you mentioned last fall that you were going to then build one plan and then submit it. Is the plan then to submit the single plan uh for the permit um at at the point of 2030 as opposed to prior to that?
>> So we previously committed to a schedule and we need to either meet that schedule or or um or request a change in the schedule if we were going to do any of them. uh if we're going to submitting any of them later than that. So the plan
is to at least meet that schedule. It may be so I think I said at a previous meeting on on this watershed plan uh discussion here that I think there will be some
ponds that are ready to move sooner and some that are ready that are going to take longer. So the goal was to have a draft plan that covers everything, >> right? >> And and really as we get to the end of that, I think we're going to have a better vision of how to finalize them
and whether we want to change our strategy for uh requesting the watershed applying for the watershed permits. So we we have we have a a grouping and a and a deadline for each each group uh right now. If we want to change that, we
need to uh apply for that or request an extension or a modification of that. >> So the first one was going to be submitted in 27 then 28 2930 there that's still the plan. So by by 2030 all these wershed management plans and
permits will have been applied for but some earlier than others. >> Yeah, that is that's the current that's what we've committed to so far. If we want to change it, we we can do that. >> Great. Okay. Comments from Go ahead, Amy. >> Comments from the audience.
>> Maggie got her hand up first. >> Maggie got her hand up first. >> Oh, Chris Neil. So, that was great. I thought that was great. Uh, it's a ton of work and it was very clearly laid out. But I I just have two questions. So when you're estim I maybe this needs to
almost go to Kristen. When you're estimating the reductions needed to meet the TMDLs, do you have the same MEP model that Brian House used to calculate those reductions? And if you don't, how are
you going to do it? >> Kristen Rathen, ScienceWarses. Um, so GHD is actually looking at the water use numbers and they are updating the wastewater loading. That's the primary term. Um, we're also going back through some of the golf courses that have
closed and adjusting the fertilizer loads. We're not rerunning the entire MEP. It's basically an update of the wastewater nitrogen contributions based on water. >> So, it's an update. It's an update of the of the loading calculation, not the
circulation. Yes, Chris just get to the microphone focus we're recording. >> So I'm just there are two pieces to these MEP reports right there's the watershed loading calculation and then there's the estrine circulation calculation that leads you in some way
that I do not understand to estimating you know how much reduction is needed to meet the TMDL at the Sentinel station and that's the blackbox part to me because I completely understand the watershed loading calculations and I think you could you know you could update them and that's fine. So I just
it's just something to pay attention to and and uh my other question is so the update to the data which I think is important because some of these things are really old is uh that comes from center for coastal studies monitoring data and BBC data on the west side is
that mostly >> NSMass does the south coasts uh for coastal studies harbor >> um they also do some of the south coast and then BBC does >> the west side. Yeah. Okay. So, it's a combination of those of of those things.
Yeah. Okay. All right. Oh, thanks. >> Can I make one more? So, we're not changing the TMDL that that mass is set. So, we're just adjusting what we need to get the difference to >> Maggie.
>> Hi, Maggie McGaw. um resident of Wau and um also speaking for citizens for the protection of Wau Bay. Um my question is is very much um related to Chris's uh at many of the earlier meetings when
Kristen presented the plans watershed by watershed. at the end of the conversation, somebody inevitably said, "Well, the numbers are going to change because those, you know, those numbers go back to 2014 or whatever it was." So
my question is, do you have a guess of when you're going to have new numbers and because that is going to impact the number of houses that are going to have to go on IIA systems or have some, you know, I'm speaking about Walkway Bay,
the east side of Walkway Bay that won't be sewered. So what are the implications for areas like that that um may have a higher number to um deal with. So that's
my question. >> Um I I'm not sure I that we are understanding one another in that um so we're Kristen's doing the analysis now based on uh we have water quality data. So showing our our water quality
history, we have water use data which is excuse me different from what it was 20 years ago. So that's the main update. There's also um there's a couple of other land use considerations like land that's been put into conservation that
wasn't in conservation 20 years ago. We're not going through and doing a a detailed lot by lot analysis. We're we're adjusting those larger factors that will be done shortly and is going to be part of so our overall plan will
reflect that analysis and so within this this one-year time frame we will have a a plan that reflects that analysis. Does that answer your question? It's within the it's within this planning process. It's not beyond that that we're doing
that evaluation. All right. Okay. Matt, >> Matt Hanley, 710 Thomas on his road. Um, I appreciate that, you know, the work that Kristen and and uh Amy have put into this. Um, one thing that I continuously brought up bring up and has
continuously ignored is that we need to under this report since we p we didn't pay attention to it last report is large nitrogen contributors you know um all Cape recycling which is right above Walk White Bay is contributing to the you
know nitrogen organic nitrogen to the to the estuaries to the south of that. It's right on top of some of these estuaries that we're going to that are they're in it's in a nitrogen sensitive area. It's contributing nitrogen. Um the town's
leaf dump uh blacksmith shop stump dump and um with the current decision to do 7,000 IIA systems in the town of Falmouth, that means 7,000 septic systems are going to be torn out. That
material is is is compacted with PAS, nitrogen, phosphorus and that will be going to Thomas Landers Road which is also in a nitro sensitive area. You know we need to take that nitrogen contribution and phosphorus contribution
and consider that we need to do something to prevent that nitrogen from leeching into the watershed. And because you're you're basically just taking nitrogen from one area and contributing it to another area, you know, um so that needs to be factored in if we the town
needs to work with Lawrence and Lynch or Aggregate Industries to to install a lined pit to keep that nitrogen from leaking into the watershed, then that's something we need to think about now. We're planning for the future and that's
part of the future that we need to plan for. So, um, and in addition to that, I'd like to see if I can get a copy of that draft watershed management plan and the DER outline, um, because I will be reviewing it and commenting on it. There
was some under the TASA report and under the the original comprehensive um water plan there was some oversightes um about um wetlands and uh Meepa areas that were
overlooked. I want to make sure under the new plan that those areas are not overlooked again and through the review process working with the organizations that are ensuring proper protection to these areas of critical habitat and
concern that those areas are identified. So if if Kristen or Amy if you guys can get me a copy of that I'd appreciate that. Um let's see I had one more concern. >> So Matt the the presentation that Amy just gave >> Mhm. and the table of contents.
>> Yeah, >> they haven't done anything yet beyond the table of contents. Those will both both get posted to the water quality management. >> Okay, awesome. Great. I appreciate that. >> It may take a few days, but yeah, everything from a meeting like this we pass over and we post
>> and I if if I can be kept in the loop as far as those meetings and public comment periods, I'd appreciate it. Then I will be very involved in that process. Um, I just feel it's it's a it's a duty to the residents of FMLA to make sure that process is properly followed.
>> So, as I said at the beginning, the as as they get as they get to a point of, you know, anything substantive, >> okay, I don't know whether that's over the year, they come in four times or six times or eight times, but they they will regularly be coming to this committee
and providing a status update of where they're at and they'll be open to public comment. Yeah. Um, in all in all fairness, um, these reports, I've read every piece of literature that this committee has put out and Amy and Kristen have put out.
The Tasa report by itself is 378 pages. To read that amount of content and to be notified in a short period of time is when you have two full-time jobs is is is a is a big, you know. So, if I can
get out ahead of it and and know when these public comment periods are before before that this is presented, I can read these and and and work with Amy and work with Kristen and make corrections then of oversightes, then then it it it
expediates the process because then you don't have someone contesting your your documents, but it also um gives me the ample time to to to gather my thoughts. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Okay.
All right. Um, based upon the earlier decision, I have received an email at 3:53 p.m. today from Earl Burnernhard and Hilda Mangay. And they said under the proposed plan to
prepare for an ENF, they state please include approved eco toilets. All eco toilets divert urine, but not all collect urine in the proposal to mitigate and reduce nutri nutrient loads to reach TMDL. Our current study shows
that the NMP concentration as well as load water uses measured of existing eco toilet installations are better lower than the best IIA systems. >> So we need a vote of this committee. Can I get a motion? So moved. >> Seconded.
>> Okay. Somebody want to read that out? What what is what is the motion? Ed, >> the motion is to uh send support sending the environmental notification form including the draft watershed management plan and the DEI DEIR outline
to the select board and then to the town manager for signature so it can be submitted to the state. >> Okay. Good. That's the that's the motion. And that's the motion that you seconded. >> Yes. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Motion passes unanimously with one uh
none present. >> Okay. >> Good. Thank you everyone. >> Okay. The next item on the agenda is a is is going to be a quick one. Uh it's information for this board. is also information for people who have
regularly paid attention to what we're doing. Um, for the last several years, we've had a contract with ScienceWare uh that funded the services of Christristen um that was funded, I think Amy, correct me if I'm wrong, article 17 from years
ago and some of the um Air Force uh money was the source of funding for that. As of last year ending, there was only about $30,000 remaining. Um, past year services ran in the4 to $50,000
range. And so we've got a new contract from ScienceWare for this year where Scienceware is specifically right now only tasked with um doing support for the Snug Harbor uh PRB grant as well as
um helping helping put together grants for things like the um state state grant program that comes out. but keeping the minutes, posting the agenda or all the other things that Kristen was doing, you know, where some of you guys would reach out and say, "Kristen, can you tell me?"
Um, that's no longer going to happen. So, when the minutes come out after this meeting, I guarantee you they will not be as complete or as good, but I will do my best to to make make minutes that uh at least are readable and reflect at least a modicum
of what we've done tonight. Okay. Um, >> can I ask a question? >> Sure. The last time we discussed this, it was my understanding that someone was looking into alternative funding to
bring Christian services back to the previous level. Are you saying that that has failed? >> I'm saying that in response to a letter from me pointing out the situation with Kristen to Amy and to uh the town's uh
upper management. Uh we got to the point where she's got a contract now to work on the PRB. >> So it did fail >> to go to the full level. >> I'm I'm comfortable that we're not having to do the the the Snug Harbor
PRB. >> Failure isn't your fault. It's just a statement that there is no hope for returning it to the previous level. >> Uh unlikely. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Additional comment for me. I
I'm very discouraged by the town position. When I first we were notified that the funding was gone. I was like, "Wow." I thought this was an important advisory committee to the town of Felmouth and
wastewater is probably the most pressing issue with for the town going forward for the next several decades. And um I I would hope that the town fathers um will consider
finding a source to continue providing the administrative support and the technical support uh to the level of which the town has been accustomed for many many years. Um a lot of money is spent in this town on
a lot of things that really don't have the impact or the criticality of wastewater planning. And I and I would think it's such a pressing issue uh that a funding source so that it's continuous and not have to grab from here and there
over the years going forward. A regular source of funding at an adequate level to provide that support is very important to the town of Felmouth. Okay. An audience question. Go ahead, >> Maggie McGaw. Again, uh my in instant
reaction to this is that losing Kristen's services at a moment when you're when Amy and and all of you are in process of preparing documents of such magnitude seems crazy. And so my
question is, should we be mounting a campaign to bring people to the select board to >> I'm going to clarif I'm going to try to clarify. >> Kristen's going to continue to do a lot of what she did over the last year, but she's now working
under a contract with the um wastewater superintendent. She's a subconsultant to GHD and it No, do I have it wrong? >> Sorry. I I have a habit of reacting
physically in the I didn't mean I'm like shaking my head. Just to be uh literal about it. There there are two I the town has two agreements. One with GHD, one with science wares. Kristen Rathjen is is working under as as a employee of
science wares. Kristen Rathen is working on the wershed management plan and the watershed management plan is a major task in the jurisdiction of the water quality management committee. So what what Steve's referring to is the support
of this the administrative support of this committee. So, I'm I'm not aware of other I haven't done a survey, but I'm not aware of other town committees that have staff people that uh administrative staff people. The the water quality
management committee has had a staff person, has been very fortunate to have a staff person because that was funded through article 17. and the article 17 funds are there's only $30,000 left in the article uh 17 funds. So it's not
that the town management has pulled something out from under the committee that that you know we that was provided previously. It's really it's it's an unusual circumstance uh that this committee was in because of uh that
because of that original funding source. The article 17 of April 2011 was when that was passed and that that funding is now >> uh gone. So Kristen is very involved with watershed planning uh on the um
under a separate contract for that work. >> Can I ask Amy a question? Sure. Amy, you >> is there a legal fudge to allow Amy to be paid from the GHD contract to for to collect additional information from us
to go into the report? >> Now, the contracts are for specific work. Um, so they they each have a scope of work. Um, and this this $30,000 19 of it of of it is going to be to support the PRB uh contract and the remaining
11,000 is still to do grant support if that comes up or um or other support for the committee. It's just $11,000 instead of 45 or 55,000 45 to $55,000 which is what has been used in the past.
Okay. Go ahead, Matt. >> Um Matt Hanley at 710 Thomas Lennis Road. I'm actually speaking as the environmental um consultant for the Westouth Village Association on this one. Um um I had a
earlier conversation with Ed and he said that, you know, I I appreciate Amy's um clarifying that the the efforts for the PRB in Snug Harbor are going to continue. Um, the West Focs
stance has always been very clear that this PRB in Snug Harbor is going to make a big difference. Um, we want to see that work be successful. We want to see that work move uh uh forward smoothly
and and we feel it's very important to the health of West Snug Harbor and West with Harbor. So um you know we are very happy to see that that work is going to continue in a productive and and you know um timely fashion. So uh
unfortunately I'm sad to see that the board is losing a staff member. The work that's being done here really is important. It's probably one of the biggest and toughest issues to handle in this town. Um but you know sometimes
when when there's hardships you know people need to consider things and you know um the freshwater ponds committee really should be um being pulled into some of these discussions and and maybe it might be prudent to start res you
know splitting the responsibilities between two committees. Take some of the load off off the um water quality management committee. you know, we're all talking about the same water. The the water in the freshwater committees, the the water from our fresh ponds and
rivers ends up in our salt ponds. And so so maybe it's time that the water quality management committee starts reaching out for assistance from other other town committees and also building better relationships with the Barnstable County and uh their partners as well.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. Okay, the next item on the agenda is a continued discussion on the elements of a responsible management entity. Uh John Waterbury has been working on this and
uh he he reached out to me earlier today said he's really not prepared to bring it forward at this time. So I would entertain a vote uh to pass on this item and we'll add it to a future agenda when John is a little more more ready to go. >> So move. >> Okay. >> Second.
>> Okay. All those in favor of uh passing on this item indicate by saying I. >> I. I. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Next item on the agenda is a summary,
if you will, of the Saxon Easterly 375 Sandwich Road project. So, lately there's been some
public comments, conversations not involving necessarily me. um relative to the 375 sandwich road. >> Are you wanting to put it in presentation mode?
>> Yeah. Where do I do that? >> So, slideshow. >> Oh, from the beginning. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Up and down. Up and down. Yep. So um in pu pulling this together I went back to some sources of information. I looked at the agreement and the
stipulation for entry of final decision between Fmouth Southerntherly LLC and the zoning board of appeals of the town of Felmouth dated April 11th 2025. I went to the town of Felmouth zoning board of appeals comprehensive permit modification dated April 4th 2025.
I went to the town of Fam with the zoning board of appeals comprehensive permit decision July 25th 2024. I looked at the draft individual individual groundwater discharge permit number 1018-0 dated November 7th 2025 and I went back
to the Massachusetts Estuaries project uh MEP uh documents for great perch pond dated April 2025. So the current reduction goal is to reduce the loading by 12,687
kilograms per year for the entire watershed. That value is based on the MEP reports and it only consider it's only considering existing loading. The town did not include MEP reports
buildout loadings uh when they did their last uh report on this. And as Amy covered earlier in this uh thing, the ongoing watershed planning will include buildout loadings and is expected to generate a current conditions reduction
gold which will not be 12,687 but will be a different number likely higher um but that number will not be available again till later in the year.
So making an effort at some nitrogen loading estimates for 375 Sandwich Road if it was developed per zoning regulations. The MEP estimate of buildout loading was based on existing zoning regulations.
375 Sam Road was zoned for 1acre zoning at the time of the MEP report and it still is actually zoned for one acre. The parcel being developed has 28.79 acres. I took 28 single family homes. In the
MEP report, they had a value in the Great Pond area. Uh an average value of 136 gallons per day per household. Um with 2 something persons per household. I don't remember what it was 2.4 or 2.5
something like that. They also used the 35 milligrams per liter of nitrogen. Um, and in the MEP report, there was some uh I'm going to turn to Kristen. Was it 10% 10% didn't didn't make >> 10%
>> 25% >> 25% attenuation. So with those FA factors that calculated to 125 kilograms per nitrogen per year if it was developed at that time per the zoning. Alternatively, if we go to that parcel
today with the 28 homes on it and the board of health's IIA mandate and the 10 milligram per target and again uh the 136 gallons the 10% then the thing that comes out to 36 kilograms of nitrogen per year.
The Eastley has a proposed wastewater treatment flow. The facility is sized per title 5. Title 5 uses peak flow rates. They have 185 single bedrooms at 110 gallons per day,
85 twobedrooms, again 100 10 gallons per day per bedroom, and 30 bedrooms. That equates to 48,950 gallons per day. Um I don't know where the discrepancy is in the dischar
discharge permit of 49,950. There is a clubhouse and a couple of rooms there. So it's probably I don't have um fuss and O'Neal's uh documents to to refer to but it's clo it's close.
The groundwater permit the draft groundwater permit that is out there has a total annual nitrogen load of 346 kg per year. So the design flow of 49,950 gallons per day and in the permit there are couple
of different numbers. The daily average discharge has to be 5 milligrams per liter over the year. That equates to the 344.8 that should be kilograms not grams kilograms per year of nitrogen. The groundwater permit recognizes that
this is a treatment facility and there is some variability in it and allows for variability in the affluent nitrogen concentration but a 10 milligram per liter is sort of the you know maximum day or maximum value. Okay. The plant as
designed is designed to achieve 3 milligrams per liter uh for an effluent. Um, and I did a little, you know, sort of sensitive sensitivity thing. If the plant had 20 days per year at 10 milligrams per liter,
245 days at 5.22 milligrams per liter, and 100 days at 3 milligrams per liter would achieve the total annual load. And anybody that wants to go build the spreadsheet can move the numbers around and figure out how many days would you have to be at 3 milligrams per liter to
make up for. But this is a little bit of my long experience with watching variability at various wastewater plants that you know there's there's going to
be some days where it it it doesn't perform well, but good operators will get it back in line pretty quickly. um it'll come come down and there'll be several days um and there'll be a bunch of days particularly in the warmer weather in the summer where it will run
really well. Okay. And just so that everybody's working from the same information, I copied out couple of conditions from the ZBA decision. Condition 13 in the ZBA decision um says
the applicant shall design and construct the wastewater treatment facility to meet an annual average effluent concentration of 5 mgs per liter with best operational efforts to achieve an average annual concentration of 3 milligs per liter of total nitrogen.
And then further down in condition 13 it says so the I'm going to stop right here momentarily before I read this. The plan from Fuss and O'Neal showed a treatment facility and it also showed a permeable reactive barrier. The permeable reactive
barrier was very close to where the groundwater discharge was. And um professional opinion um I wish uh we had our PRB expert here but he's not. um was
that the permeable reactive barrier wasn't going to do much uh without some distance. I think we had a nice discussion here recently about the vadosome and travel times and what happens with nitrogen in the ground. So the PRB
where they could fit it on the site relative to the treatment facility wasn't going to do much. So there's a paragraph in condition 13 that says in lie of installing the permeable reactive barrier, the applicant shall provide funds to the town which will be used by
the town to fund the implementation of the town's planned nitrogen offset measures within the great pond watershed. This contribution will consist of the applicant making a donation to the town of $750,000
within 30 days of receipt of the first certificate of occupancy on the property. So the town has not got that money yet. Town will not get that money until there's a certificate of occupancy. And then an additional item that's relative to nitrogen loading is
condition 16 in the ZBA decision says the applicant shall provide a fertilizer restriction on the property in the manner prescribed by the town's wastewater superintendent or designate so that it may be eligible for inclusion in the calculation of the town's
nitrogen reduction measures. So in summary, potential future loading at the time of the MEP report was 125. The loading based on current border health uh if it got developed as single family
homes will be 36 kilograms per year. And the loading based on the groundwater discharge permit and 445 occupied bedrooms uh at peak flow would be 346 kg per year commented
none disappointing that this is going to happen but it's going to happen. So um I think this is the best we could hope for. Do do we know what type of plant whose plant it will be? Is it Lombardo or >> I uh it's it's I believe it's a membrane
uh plant so it's not a nitro or a nitrex >> that you know when I saw something you know months ago um >> Steve >> am I correct this is a done deal even if we don't like it there's nothing we can do >> I'm just People have been talking I just
wanted to go through a summary of facts >> I'm not criticizing I'm just trying to clarify >> for myself and anybody But it's a done deal. There's even if we don't like it, there's nothing we can do about it. >> The zoning board of appeal and everything that's Yeah.
>> My comment is this is a good example of what we need to think about in the future. We don't just have to meet the TMDLs as they're defined today. We have to continue to meet those TMDLs
in the future. So every one of these projects that comes doesn't mean if if we've finished a watershed plan and we've sewed it and I ited uh and all of a sudden there's a big project, we still
are going to be responsible for maintaining that TMDL and we will have to modify the watershed plan to reflect us being able to to do Tom,
>> I uh I like the analysis. I don't like the results of the analysis, but I like that I like that you took the time to uh pick through it and put it all on a reasonably understandable basis. Um like uh John's comments, um we've still got a
lot of work ahead of us despite doing all the calculating and figuring and adjusting of different control mechanisms and stuff that we're going to be faced with these going forward. Um people are going to come in and want to do big projects. John,
>> I guess the way I look at it is there's about 220 kilograms per year difference between what would have been part of the MEP report for single family homes over those lots versus what we now have the 345 six kilograms per year. And I think
about it as that's about 80 IA systems. You know, if each one's g delivering 2.7 milligrams or kilograms per year of nitrogen, that's roughly $2.5 million of expense that this is added to clean up that nitrogen. And they we're going to
compensate the town with what $750,000 is the the number. So, we're falling far short of it. But it just says that we have to, you know, with Kristen's analysis, we almost have to take the high-side numbers because of this unknown buildout component that's going
to add more nitrogen and if we want to be meeting the TMDL of the future, we can't be too conservative, >> right? So, as I was putting this together, what one of the things that sort of struck me is um you know, through whatever process the town and
the developer reached, you know, a fairly lengthy decision that I just picked out the stuff having to do with wastewater, but relative to wastewater and nitrogen, there is no sort of formal policy
that's been promulgated in the town that says what is what's the cost for nitrogen and what should somebody who's adding nitrogen into an estuary um be obligated to pay? The only thing I
found so far is uh on the Marthur's Vineyard Commission, they actually have a calculation uh sheet. So if you have a project of environmental concern that goes before them and you can't knock the nitrogen down to the level that they
want you to be get to, they've developed us a calculation. I have not had a chance to kind of work through that yet where you then gets calculated what the cost be. I would imagine that in order to develop something like that, it would
have to get someplace into the zoning regulations or the bylaws would have to go through town meeting, but it may be something to put on one of our future agendas to begin. Maybe look at what Martha Martha's Vineyard has done and see if that's a model to start from. Okay,
comments from the audience. Chris, >> Chris Neil of Marvin Circle. I have two comments. One is 40Bs can't overrule state law. State law, as far as I understand it, says
that new wastewater discharge permits into watersheds of impaired waters, 303 listed waters, can't result in net nitrogen increases. So, D should not be issuing a permit that doesn't have
specified offsets. That that 350 346 kilograms per year should be zero. and the state law says it should be zero. So I I think I don't think the answer is you can't do anything. You could argue this D permit. I guess that
that was my point and the the town right wrote a letter saying we'll accept the $750,000 and we'll throw it somehow without detail as far as I understand it. So, are there details behind the offsets that that $750,000 will require?
Because DP's permit should, I think, specify those offsets and they shouldn't be issuing a permit that doesn't get you to no net zero nitrogen in an impaired water without some specificity to what the offsets are
actually going to be. So, I think you have the teeth in the state law. Thanks. Matt Matt Hanley of 710 Thomas Lenners Road. I actually attended all of these ZBA meetings and I spoke up for the
residents of Falmouth. We're being penalized for this for this development. It's, you know, I had wrote a letter to the board of selectmen. I believe it was shared with this committee and Amy lol and you know there was a number put out
that of a mile and a quarter to hook into the to the sewer the the force main but in real in reality that's the existing force main not the not the future force main that's being that's was approved recently the new force main
that's going down um blacksmith shop road I mean Brookilm road is a half a mile way, you know, um I think the town should do a better job of working, you know, with planning and see these projects as they're coming down the
board and start planning for the eventuality that um that they might need to be tied in and come up with some kind of zoning regulation that calls out future projects that they get charged for the sewer equivalent units. So this
project here, I think I don't know if the number was 84 basically homes. This would be the equivalent of 84 homes. So that would be 84 several equivalent units if this was to be tied into the existing wastewater system. Now, I I do
realize from attending as many meetings as I have here with the water quality management committee that there are calculations on discharge and flow and that the process to to change the calculations for a discharge permit is
lengthy, but you know, we just approved a $60 million sewer expansion and part of that nitrogen that we're taking out is being offset by this Saxton property, which is unfortunate. You know, it's um
the other comment that I'll say is that this 750,000, you know, should be put into um John, I know you're working on a responsible management. Um um a SUP, possible SUP
for this town. Um the sewer utility program uh would be a um an non-government organization that works under or with the town of Falmouth. Um that $750,000
could be put as as seed money for this SUP and that seed money could be used to um help the butters and other uh residents in that watershed to get some kind of stipen um to put IIA septic
systems um in that watershed. I would like to see that money used in that way and I feel that this is an important um thing that the board should be thinking about. Um, so John, I just, you know, if
you've heard my comments, you know, hopefully that, you know, you'll put some consideration into that when you do your presentation in an upcoming meeting that that 750,000 could could be help homeowners afford cuz that wershed in
East Felmouth, that's some of the most um, you know, economically challenged areas of our town. And so if those homeowners could get uh assistance with their upgrading their septic systems,
the IA septic systems through a SUP and that 750,000 offset plan, you know, that would be very helpful to uh helping with affordable housing here in this town. Thank you. >> I should know your name, but it's just I'm getting old and just escaped. You're
not you're not enough of a regular. >> Yeah. Wendy Vistler here is president of the Kunameset River Trust. >> Um I would just like to echo what Chris had said. Um this should be this this shouldn't be net zero
change. This amount of nitrogen coming into the Kunameset River wershed should be zero. It It's ridiculous. I mean, I think you do, like I we do have some teeth to require this to be zero. And my worry
is, yes, there was agreement worked out that $750,000 would be used to offset this amount coming in. But my worry is it's not going to be enough. And that as a taxpayer, I'm upset that I may have to
subsidize a for this huge development, one of the biggest developments in Falmouth for the and the developer is going to make money off this, but yet we have to pick up the cost of the impact to the environment. And I I think that's just
wrong and it's very very unfortunate. So, I do hope that yes, this the money that we have received will help offset the um lower income taxpayers in this town and help them out to pay for this. But it's I I really hope in the future
that the town can deal with these 40bs in a better manner to not allow the taxpayers to have to set have to pay for subsidize their development. Thank you. Okay.
>> I think Amy wanted to say something first. >> I think this is the town is this is not the town's fault or the town's um I I there's there's two
conflicting state laws. Um and the the town is stuck between them. There's 40B and there is um the watershed the wershed permit regulations under the under the um for clean water. So
the I I believe this is a legislative issue not uh a town issue. Um the the town did what it could within its uh power and um
I think the that if the town wants this modified it needs to go to the state and it get changed at the state level. Steve. Um, I'm very happy to hear what Chris and Wendy are saying and I hope
they're right. And in lie of the fact that we can no longer call on Kristen to do this, I'd like the board, the committee to encourage Chris and Wendy to research whether in fact Chris's
statement about D is true and how we caused the teeth to clamp down. If obviously as volunteers I can't make anyone do anything. >> Yeah. I I there there is a defined
comment period associated with the draft permit that was issued and somebody other than me may have the date but if it's not this Friday it's next Friday is >> passmber Christmas. >> Huh?
>> He submitted a letter submitted a letter. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I was going to say there's several letters were submitted association for preservation of Cape Cod. Submitted a letter and and consistently reiterating the point you made uh Chris about the conflict in the
state laws. We'll see where the D comes out. >> Steve, can I just make one more ask one more question of Amy? I understand your point that it's a legislative issue, but did the town negotiate the $750,000 that was going to be then used to offset
these nitrogen credits or was that something that was beyond the town? Because if it's the town, we need to learn so we don't repeat the mistakes in future. >> Yeah, I I think I'm going to take this one if I can. Um I I read you from the decision. So the the the ZBA retained
outside council, you know, the first time they came down with a decision, the developer took it to uh an entity in Boston which then forced a mediation adjudication to for the the parties to reach an agreement. Okay. Um there's
there's there's there's layers upon layers inside the final agreement and final conditions and then that becomes became a legal document. Okay. So the drilling down into, you know, where do where do numbers come from? I mean, you
know, I read the thing about the um uh fertilizer. I mean, to to my knowledge, it's the only development in town that agreed to that condition, you know, to not not use fertilizer. And that that's worth something. I don't know what it's worth. I don't think it's worth 346
kilograms per year, but it's worth something. I I just want to make the rather sad point that if we're looking at nitrogen removal remediation slash whatever the $750,000
>> would buy 15 IAS right now at market prices 15 15 houses at nine what is it 9 pounds a year under title five septic >> seven >> 2.7 is what you get credit for for a septic as septic system,
>> right? What I'm saying is >> so Tom earlier I suggested that we we develop an you know that on a future agenda if you're all willing to we should look at what they're doing in the vineyard look at that formula and you know it's going to take time to get it
through as a zoning bylaw and everything else right >> but I think this committee could could be proactive by having learned from what just transpired and developing something that you know the ZBA is not having to invent it or guess at it or do whatever
My only suggestion would be to schedule the island trips during the summer. >> Out of personal interest, >> they say all of Cape Cod is very nice in the summer. >> Okay. If there's more, there's no there's no vote on this at all. This is this is information just just out there
>> and thank you for doing it, Steve. >> Mr. Can I can I make a comment >> specifically to the saxin of the nitrogen? >> Yes. Yes. You know, I can appreciate that this board would make a trip to the island to
to look at a nitrogen offset plan, but the town of Falmouth, our town, I continuously brought bring this up and it's never acknowledged by the board. This town pays for a nitrogen offset plan in West Fmouth Harbor. We don't
need to study another town. We just need to look at the legal agreement that the town of Felmouth has signed with the Buzzes with the Buzz's Bay coalition for their nitrogen offset plan and the way that that nitrogen offset plan is is
administered. So, you know, let's apply the same logic that the town of Falmouth is paying to another non-government organization to offset apply that to Saxton. The same
when we sat here with the Saxon property and we were discussing it. They said the Saxton property should be able to treat their wastewater to the same standards of the town of Fmouth. Their nitrogen offset plan should mirror our nitrogen offset plan for West Falmouth. Thank
you. Okay. >> All right. The next item on our agenda is a summary of the Knobska Oyster, I think. >> Knobs light. >> Knobs light. >> Oyster. >> Oysters. Yeah. >> On a personal note,
>> type typo there. On a personal note, Matt and Sarah decided to celebrate where they were married, which was at Knobska Light. So, they made that the name of their new brand of farmed oysters. But anyway, um I don't have all of the data from all three of the
contracted growers, but Matt letter, which was a very nicely done letter that covered his payment to the town and talked about what was going on there. I'm just going to very quickly summarize um a couple of key points that that he raised and that he raises and um let you
know that the big report is is still in the works. Um now, first of all, the bad news. You've heard me say year after year that it's tremendous success story and things are really zooming along after this horrible. The first year was 2020
and that was the year of COVID and there was no market for half oysters on the half shell, no high-end product. And so basically that year was a waste for the for the growers. Um this year uh and Matt, and this is only applying to
Matt's situation because I don't know what happened with the other growers yet. Um had a 51% decrease in harvested oysters over last year. Um, and the big worry in the past has been things like disease and bad weather and things like
that. Um, the main reason for their low harvest was late in the year. I I I'll tell you the the the dynamics of the oyster harvesting. They harvest some in the summer and they sell some in the summer, but late in the year there are two really big deals, the holiday sales
around Thanksgiving and particularly around Christmas. And in December, the CDC um announced that there was a salmonella epidemic sweeping the country uh in raw seafood without specifying that one they
had, this was data back from June, scattered throughout the year up until the time they made this announcement. They never pinned down the source. This crushed oyster harvesters, shellfish harvesters, because it just said seafood. It didn't say shrimp. It just
said you could get a very serious salmonella poison case from seafood. The market is already sort of at its limit. There's been many more producers entering the market over the last several years and they've been able to
grow the market somewhat, but this tanked it. And this is the main reason they couldn't afford to harvest their oysters in in late winter just before Christmas. this I think came out the first week in December this announcement and um so the market collapsed and
that's the biggest single reason for these for these low numbers. Um, now the good numbers are they even with this having the rug pulled out from under the by what I'm calling an exttrinsic factor. Um, they still met the town's
harvest target by 7% looking at the whole year. They were meeting those numbers and they sold a total of of just over 300,000 oysters from that halfacre lease. I think keep in mind that that's half of
what they have been doing. They've just been an amazing success story there. The total weight was 36,000 pounds of oysters. Um, more good news is over the five years they've paid about $80,000
in rent to the town of Falmouth. This is just coming from one grower, $79,700 something dollars um for the rent of the town equipment. And the agreement is that this income to the town enters the
town's revolving shellfish account which buys seed cohogs. Now keep in mind that cohogs are sequestering nitrogen also. But we've focused on oysters because oysters can do it in about 18 months total from a
spring put out in say April of one year to the harvest starting late summer through the fall. the following year. Khogs per cohog sequester the same amount of nitrogen as an oyster, but it takes them three years to do it. So, the focus has
been on the rapid return with this. But these millions, and I mean it's millions of baby clams every year are put out for commercial harvest and for recreational harvest. It's it's been very very successful. Um the town is doing a bunch
more projects to increase the survival. You may have seen some of their netting projects around town um where they put out thousands of cohogs and uncover them with a quarter inch mesh very firmly anchored and it's been a success except
the Wild Harbor site. There was so much wave action that they got wiped out completely there. But tremendous increase. That's the thing you can do when you're buying baby oy baby shellfish of any kind. But in the case of cohogs, um, one that's 10 or 12 millimeters instead of six or seven
millimeters probably has three times the chance of survival. It's the little tiny one. So, so they've been able to protect them um that way. So, that's another return that we're not even accounting for in our nitrogen budgeting in the removal
process. Um, now the five-year summary he has in one paragraph here, in five five years, they've harvested not quite 2 million oysters, 1.97 million oysters with a total of 235
236,000 pounds of oysters. And over the 5 years, those oysters grew from seed oysters. cumulative over the five years they've they've started with less than a,000 pounds of seed oysters. So you go from
less than a,000 pounds to 236,000 lb. So it's a system that that really works. And over the five years his project alone by his numbers, he uses a slightly different method than I do, but they're they're really comparable. A total of just over 600 lb of nitrogen
has been removed from from Eel River over that time period. um he's making a special plea and he's tried himself and there's major interest in town to try to get beyond this monocultural approach to oysters.
They're working with scallops. He and several others have tried kelp farming. Um the problem is the places where you have the space to put the kelp farm, there's not enough nitrogen and other nutrients in the seawater to have really good growth of that because they're out in Vineyard Sound mostly with those
projects. Um, so anyway, that's a real brief report with what's going on there and some of the problems they're facing. And again, we'll wait and see what the other numbers look like from the other two growers. And I'll report on that in the near future. The last time I checked,
this stuff was still in the works. >> Well, thank you for that >> questions from Thank you for Tom. I I just I got to backtrack momentarily because I got I got comments on the Saxon thing that I didn't >> Oh, I'm sorry. Should I stop now or you want to wait till I finish the questions
from the board? >> I I'm going to do it after after we get done with questions from the board. >> Okay. Steve, you had a comment or >> two questions. When there's a you said that in one year, I guess it was last year late in the season, they could only harvest
50% of the oysters, >> right? >> What happens to the 50% they don't harvest? >> They have to leave them out there. except it gets to be a problem in some cases. They get too big for the containers. They have in some cases landfilled. That's what happened in 20
the COVID year. 300,000 oysters were landfilled, harvestable oysters. >> It's not that you can save the money on planting new ones the following year. No, because um I've been directly involved with projects where they where with the town the ones growing for the
town that we put out in West Felmouth Harbor um were left too long in the bags and they grow through the mesh of the bags. So, we went out with improvised hammers and other tools to break the projecting
part of the oyster shells off so the oysters could then be pulled out of the bags that they were growing in, which is not an efficient way to harvest thousands of oysters. >> And the the other is a miserly financial comment by me. >> Yeah.
>> It sounds like the town's in rent is just covering a fraction of the town's expenses. is a negative return on investment for the town. >> I don't think the town really has expenses now. The bags are built. >> Well, you're saying the rent goes entirely into the seed, which is then
essentially given free to the oyster people. >> No, no. >> A very good deal for the >> It's not No, no. The oyster people buy their own seed. Matt's already already committed to spending 30. He's already said what his projections are for the coming year. Um >> Well, he he's already committed he may
buy other seed, but you said I maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you said that the the $80,000 or whatever. >> No, it goes to buy seed cohogs that are put out for the public and commercial harvesters,
>> not for aquaculture purposes. So, and there's been tremendous volunteer input into this project all along building the bags and and it's worked out real well. I just think you should be alert to the possibility of
regulatory capture. You know what that is? That's when an industry that's being regulated, >> right, >> has an undue influence on the government body that's regulating it, >> right? >> In this case, the tenant may have an undue influence on the landlord. The
tenant is unhappy because they are required to use the town's equipment and facility. They have to accept what the town sets as rent. You can't show up and say, "I'm gonna grow oysters here using my own equipment." Matt doesn't use a bunch of the town equipment, but he
still has to pay the rent. He overwinters his own seat. >> The rent isn't just for the equipment. It's also the permit to use that area of water body, >> right? The rent is seven cents an animal. They just pay one flat fee
for per animal harvested. But once they harvest 28, if I remember this right, 282,000, they don't owe any more rent beyond that. That's why it's the same fee every year regardless. And of course, they're
going to grow as many oysters they can. They they grow, I would say, typically 400,000 to 600,000 oysters per halfacre plot per year. And it's it's worked out really well. And now we're looking at trying to
expand it. But we'll hear more presentations questions from uh John. >> I wonder if we couldn't when we get situations like that where we have large oysters which are not harvestable. Can we use them to start reefs?
>> Use them what? >> To start a reef. >> We're doing that in West Fmouth Harbor. They've already got a reef established there that self >> Yeah. But >> could you use them in other areas if you can't harvest seed someplace else? Yes.
>> And start a reef. >> Right. And much of this has been based on volunteer labor. Like I said, when we were cleaning out the town's um equipment by hand, it's backbreaking work, but um yeah, but you'd have to have provisions to gather them and
transport them and have a plan. But yes, no, that's a very good idea. All I would say is what about that $750,000 of Saxon money? Could that be used to buy a whole heck of a lot of oysters? >> Have to be would have to be it would have to be in Great Pond. The money is specific for Great
>> Great Pond has a lot of locations that they've recognized as potential oyster locations. They're not yet they have not yet gone through the Division of Marine Fisheries. >> Yeah, it's the biggest target right now we have is Great Pond because it has the biggest option. You can't put floating
gear over commercially productive shellfish territory. And the state definition of productive shellfish territory is one by valve per square yard. Now, no one in their right mind is going
to go in and commercially fish a spot where there's one clam per each square yard, right? I mean, who would ever do that? But that's the definition. So we can't So we're limited >> to the parts of these ponds where what's politely called black
mayonnaise. There's other terms for it. They're really black anorobic sulfuric u mud. Um and they've carefully surveyed and found the spots and great pond is the big one. The drawback with floating gear is you get a lot of push back from
other users of the water body. people that would like to water ski or sail or look at an unimpeded watercape anyway. But um yeah, it's we're we're pushing there's a bunch of spots that are under consideration. and it's going to be on a
multi-year schedule. But even at its best, if I remember the numbers correctly, they think that oysters may meet six or 7% of our numbers, I think, is what was in
the big plan years ago. I'm going back a long ways, but um >> I'm just trying to get to the 220 uh kilograms of excess nitrogen that's coming out of the Saxon property, >> right? Oh, yeah. I know. It would be It would be great. It would be great. So,
anybody out there? Everybody wants to go have some oysters now, right? I've got a bunch at home right now from West F. They're wonderful. Good. So, that's that's it, Steve. >> Okay. Um, going back uh momentarily to
item five. Uh there was a comment that was received from Earl Burnernhard and Hild de Mangi at 3:53 p.m. today under the Saxon project. Their comment that they wanted entered to the record was demand that
the construction should be urine diversion ready. Cost of plastic pipe is negligible. Okay. Kristen used to keep track of various environmental actions by other communities and agencies. Ed uh agreed
that he would keep his eye open for what was out there. We have seven minutes in. Yeah. Okay. >> Well, we still got to do minute approval, but okay. Um I I can kick you to the next meeting or >> No, I I can throw some highlights out there that I think might be of interest to people. Um, one because of the
discussion we had earlier by Amy about the uh permitting process and the filing with MEPA, uh, Wearham filed last fall with, uh, an ENF, which is an enhanced environmental notification form for a
comprehensive wastewater management plan that went under the MEPA review process. the comment period for that and what happens is when it is published in the environmental monitor that then triggers a opportunity for
public review the documents are attached to the filing so you can read the hundreds of pages or however many there are and then comment over typically a 30-day period. So the comment period for the wearham plan ended on January 22nd
and they received about 80 comments. Now the gist of the wearham plan was they're not sure what they're going to do. They're going to do but they're dependent on extensive sewering beyond what they already have. Expansion of the capability and capacity of their
wastewater treatment plant and finding a new place to dump it. They have an existing outfall that is damaging a already distressed estuary and they need to have a bigger new one.
They'd like to put it in the Cape Cod Canal. And most of the 80 odd comments received were, "Don't do that. Oh my god, you're going to screw up the canal. You're going to screw up Buzzards Bay, Cape Cod Bay because of wastewater."
People not understanding and and we'll face this once the outfall permitting process moves forward. People saying, "What are you putting out there?" not understanding that it's clear water that has three parts per million on the average of nitrogen. So that's the kind
of feedback they got. There was some feedback from state agencies and and other environmental groups about the overall plan. Interesting to note whereham did not plan on any extensive use of IAS. They were purely going
flatout sewer baby sewer dig. So that is going with the process, what the public comment period is and how it works and whereham stands with their planning going forward. Um, MASHP, our neighbor, has received a
uh, SRF, state revolving fund dollar approval in the order of magnitude of 50 million for their ongoing sewer work. Uh, they've been doing a lot of digging. Anybody that drives 28 has seen it. Uh they started their next phase of sewering this week, digging in the area
uh Great Neck Road North route up to 130 and primarily east around the uh Mashby Wakeby pond zone and Sanuit Pond. Uh so that had where uh MASHBY is moving
forward and continuing sewing. Uh Yarmouth they have been sewing for a while. Again if you go out to Yarmouth they've been making a mess of Route 28 for couple of years. Their plan is over a 40-year plan. Eight phases of five
years each. So they're going to be digging up around Yarmouth for the next 40 years. And we know how heavily uh populated that is and all the commercial usage. A company called Ravoli Construction was one of their prime contractors. They had a tragic fatality
at one of their dig sites this past fall. OSHA is still investigating. Ravoli has been given the okay by town of Yarmouth to restart at the site of the fatality with the stipulation at Ravoli's expense they will have an
on-site public safety officer watching everything they're doing hopefully it'll prevent another tragedy thank goodness was not a successful I don't know if they even bid on the Falmouth work but we're on the verge I guess of starting
our construction for the great pond phase one So, I had a couple others, but in the interest of time, I think that's enough, but couple of points of what's going on out there. >> I'll put you sooner in the agenda next time. Okay. Um, the next item is reports of members of staff. I have one very,
very quick item. On January 20th, we received word that uh a grant that Kristen put in uh with the um natural resource nitrogen sensitive area uh grants um for $7,182
to do the QAP QAP. So we have all this data but the sort of check of the data and the way it was collected the way the analysis were done to ensure that the data is accurate
uh we did not have a QAP plan in place we applied for it we got the money and that money all rolls up to SMASS or somebody right so but good work on getting a grant thank you all right last item
>> one very quick you Got one minute. You got one minute. >> The urine diversion committee has disbanded. Oh, the project is entirely uh in the hands of mass test center and there's no agreement between the town
and any of the participants. >> Good to know. >> Diversion has been dispersed. Diverted. >> Okay. Minutes of the P minutes from January 7th. Everybody got a copy of the minutes? Any comments on it? I move we
approve them as submitted. >> Okay, there is a motion been made and seconded to approve the minutes of January 7th. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed. >> Motion passed. Take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved.
>> Yeah. Second. All right. Got to get this down in here. Ed Steve on the minutes. Who who who made the motion? Me. >> Ed. Who seconded it? I I I'm willing to volunteer a second.
>> Okay. All right. Uh, all those in favor of ajouring I >> I