Heat. Heat. Have your attention, please. The >> Wednesday, July 8th, 2026 meeting of the water quality management committee shall come to order. The uh first item on the agenda is the
election of a new chairperson and vice chairperson. Uh do I have any hear any nominations for chair? I'll nominate Ed to be the chairperson. >> Any seconds?
>> Second. >> Good time. >> Any other nominations? All in favor? >> Wait a minute. Whoa, whoa, wait. I didn't accept this yet. >> You don't have to. >> Yes, I do. >> Oh, >> yes. >> Do you Do you accept it?
>> Uh, I I want to put some stipulations on this. Uh oh. >> You know, um it's a sort of default if nobody else wants to do it or is willing to do it and I am willing to serve as chair, but frankly need help. And you
know, Steve Rafferty took it upon himself to do a lot of things that we used to have administrative support by. Um Kristen's gone. There's no funding for that. It's going to be a problem ongoing as we move forward. But I I
think one of my requests would be in accepting the nomination is somebody do minutes, take the minutes. It it's something that really the chair can't do. Steve's been recording it and doing it after the fact, but it would be
more effective to have someone do it during the meeting and it could be one person and if he's not there the next meeting someone else does it. But people have to assume someone's got to pick up that responsibility or some several people to take and distribute the minutes and there is a distribution of
the committee members that are important but also other interested parties. Uh same thing with preparing and posting agendas to the town officials so that it gets properly posted and also the committee members. And then there's a
list of somewhere 15 plus people that get the agenda and the attachments ahead of time. And again being somewhat technically challenged and out of date um more computer savvy people need to step up and do that. uh prepare any
powerpoints and load them in the computer. We always relied on Kristen to do that. We don't have Kristen anymore. So, our ability to communicate to the public and amongst ourselves is going to be limited without that. So, someone
with the skill set needs to pick it up. I don't have it. I ended my professional work in 1999. I'm really out of date. >> Are there are there any other positions? >> Uh stipulations? Uh I think that's about it. >> Salary you have
>> Yeah. >> Well, you know. >> Okay. Well, I think we can handle it. >> So that's Is there anybody who is really into minutes? >> Be willing to do that. >> I would be willing to take the minutes, but I think we need to seriously explore
how much it costs to have a scribe do nothing but transcribe it or go back to using someone's telephone to record the minutes. Are you willing to be in charge of all of that? >> Well, I think we need to for the short
term. The problem is once you start taking minutes, it's extremely difficult to participate fully in the meeting. That's why it's so important to have a separate recording secretary. But I do recognize the need to record
the proceedings. And >> but we I'm saying would you be willing to do the work itself at least initially and then also look into who could replace you
or which might be somebody here or >> yeah it could be somebody here. We could just have a rotating dizzy very dizzy >> rotating responsibility that would be another way. But um >> yeah, that that's fine. But you know, other people need to step up. Steve has
done an incredible amount of work in his time with the committee and especially as chair for the last three years. And you know, other folks on the committee need to be more active uh and take on some of those responsibilities until hopefully we find another way to
accomplish the technical support or the administrative support. Anyway, so with that understanding that I can't do this without help, I will accept the nomination to complete the discussion. >> Congratulations. >> No, not yet.
>> Any any further discussion? >> All in favor? >> I >> congratulations. >> Thank you. Um, I'll do the best I can. Now we need vice. >> Now we need to vote a vice chair. I'll open nominations for
vice chair. >> Can I nominate Steve Lake? >> I'll second that. >> Any other nominations? Do you accept the nomination, Mr. Lee? >> Yes. >> Any other nominations? How about John Kaufman? He's not here.
>> Okay. All those in favor of Steve Leighton as vice chair, I >> I >> Okay. Thank you, Steve. Um, glad you're going to continue your vice chairmanship. So, with that, uh, we move
forward. Uh, next item on the agenda is to set dates for future meetings. And we've been meeting on a two-eek schedule. Um, I suggest we do that at least for the next two and see how it
goes. You may want to go less frequently or stretch it out to three weeks, but start off with that as we move forward. Historically, we've either had no meetings or one meeting the entire month of August. I don't know if you want to continue
that. The idea was it was a little break in the summertime for us. But if we spread meetings out to every 3 weeks, at least for a little while, I I think the chair's job, and I had hoped, it hasn't happened on my part, to come up with what I would call an annual timeline,
and we would anticipate when things like town meeting and other things were coming up and important topics that we need to have on the calendar to be thinking about. Um but um maybe go with a three-week schedule with
the idea that at times it might have to be compressed. >> Well, we have all of Amy's watershed plans to go through. >> I propose that we continue with two weeks and let the chair
give the chair time to get used to it and see what things are coming up. There's no reason that there has to be a we have to predict months in advance how often we're going to have read meet, >> right? We don't >> it can be changed instantly. >> I I think that's an excellent point. You
know, we've got to do some advanced planning to make sure we reserve the venue um with the town manager's secretary. Um and I'll do that, but I'll figure u Yes, sir. >> So, Barbara
sits at the front desk. >> Yeah. Barbara, she assigns the rule. >> Oh, she does not coming up. This rule on Wednesdays has been reserved by the finance committee. So, I would suggest you might want to say you want to do two weeks or three
weeks, but then somebody needs to check with Barbara. But when this room is available on Wednesdays going forward, for some reason the finance committee took up a whole bunch of block of time in both I think August and September. Do
we, Mr. Chairman, do we need to stick to Wednesdays or could we switch to a different day? >> The availability of the room is limited. So, you know, I think we've got to be cognizant of that. But, uh, they've got a lot of nerve taken over our time frame. >> Is there is there a requirement that we
be recorded, that our meetings be recorded? >> No, I don't think so. But I think it has been a a popular way for certainly me as a new committee member three years ago to review things and learn and also for the general public to be able to see. So
if if it wasn't being recorded um they wouldn't have that ability to look at it remotely. They they don't broadcast it live typically but it is recorded so you can look at at your leisure and also just advance to things that you are interested in and skip the rest. So, uh,
we'll try for I'll check with Barbara um tomorrow, I guess, to see what the availability is and see if we can get something two weeks out or not. >> Steve, did you have to check with her like every for every meeting or were you automatic? Were you automatically placed
on our schedule? >> You know, reviewing this committee every couple of months, you know, a sort of schedule. We had Wednesdays for a long time. This is a recent thing where reached out to me and said
finance committee has put a hold on Wednesdays just period of time. I don't know if they would hold up a meeting every Wednesday or not. >> What time? I typically check with her like I would if I was supposed to sit in
that seat there, I would check with her tomorrow morning to make sure that she had me already in the book for two weeks or four weeks from now and then the week of the meeting. I I would remind her that we had the room. >> Did she tell you what time the fun or do you know what time the finance committee
meets? >> I don't I don't have the details in front of me right now. So, you didn't book beyond tonight with Barbara? >> I don't recall. >> All right. I'll I'll check with her tomorrow. >> Yeah. I don't >> for July 22. >> You or someone has to do some research or else we're just spinning our wheels
here. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, we'll >> tenatively schedule for July 22nd depending on availability of the venue. >> I guess in theory we could adjust our time. >> Yes. you know, that's a committee consensus, you know, and this is something else to discuss, but again, I
don't think we're going to settle that tonight. I I would welcome suggestions from the committee members, especially we've got two new members, and you know, they've got some things to get used to and get up to speed on. They both have experience on other town committees, which is great. Um, but you know,
suggestions about should we look at alternate time or days of the week? Is that better for people or not? But keep in mind that you've got seven people. Yes. >> Except this time and day, >> right? >> Trying to change it is >> well.
>> Yeah. Open for discussion, but we're not going to settle it tonight. >> Um, all right. So, we'll tentatively schedule for July 22nd in the normal time. Any other thoughts on that?
Okay. Item three is correspondence received from Green Center on RME recommendation and the RME recommendation is um item five. I I think with the
committee's agreement I would say we can maybe uh there's no one here from the Oh, yes. There there's a member of the green center. So, you know, when we get to that discussion, I would say with table three a until we
get to five and then maybe give a couple of minutes to the green center to just mention what they sent to us. Uh if the does the committee agree with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and the same thing with uh 3B, Kim Kart's comment on the quashnet rest
um recommendation and that is item six. So again, I would suggest we table 3A to con be concurrent with number six. We in agreement, gentlemen? >> Yeah. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um perhaps by then Kim can navigate Main Street and get here. Okay. Um unfortunately item four is Amy and Amy hasn't made it. I'm hoping she's on her way, but
uh >> she was planning to come though. Main Street, as we know, is closed. Um, item five, this is a recommendation by this committee to the select board to request
to request that the D engage in a discussion on the format and need for a responsible management entity plan. And it's on the agenda as a discussion and vote. And this has been tabled for probably close to two months because
of time constraints. Uh it's a very detailed uh document that John Waterberry has been working on for a lot of time and I open it up for discussion. Does anybody have it in a format that could
be put up on the screen for the public or we'll work off our notes? I haven't, but I haven't a clue how to use that thing. >> That's another issue we used to have a consultant for, but sounds like we've got a technical expert here. I'm not
sure. We'll see where I get to. >> Continue to talk while I look for the >> for those that are here or maybe listening to it at a later time. The the committee had for many years since its inception a budget that started with a town meeting appropriation years ago to
fund a technical support person and that person also fulfilled administrative tasks. The funding is gone. There is no money for us to have any help. So the technical expertise we relied on with uh Kristen from Sciencewares and her
predecessor before that um isn't there. So we will be handicapped and working under that constraint going forward unless that condition changes. And um as you can all tell, we're
trying to learn as we go. >> It's updating. >> It's updating. >> It is updating. >> Okay. Um It's 13% right now. So, we're making >> Okay, this will take a few moment before on our home computer. >> Does anybody on the committee have you taken time to recently go over John's
document and have some things to talk about? I I will say this in light of the fact that we have a two new members that need to get up to speed on this whole topic that
we have a discussion but unless we can do that rapidly we defer a vote to a later date. Go ahead Tom. >> I want to point out that the key part of the letter is to draw the admin state administration's attention to the fact that we've had no
movement. Now, the details of the plan that we're presenting are really immaterial to our request to the state, right? I just suggest that we focus in the letter on saying, "Look, we've been working on this for a long time. We've got a plan developed. It's not the
finished plan. We know things are subject to review and stuff." and and move forward with recommending that this letter be forwarded to the select board for their consideration because we could get up to our eyeballs very quickly in
the details of the RME and the RME right now is not the key point of this letter. >> Does that sound Does that make sense? because I I at this point, as you said, we've been talking about this for two months and I really want to move it forward and the key thing is to say to
the state authorities, we're sitting here treading water while you're off on vacation somewhere. >> I I agree totally with Tom. >> Yeah, I I think that's a really good suggestion that at least we go on record with via the select board that there is
a concern. Um, and you know, we we haven't discussed it for those couple of months because it's been an an agenda item that we just didn't have time for, right? >> You know, it was coming up into, you know, 15 minutes left in the meeting and it was obviously going to be a
discussion which would take much longer. Our last meeting in June, I think the 24th, we could not hold because of a posting error on the town website. So, it was not a legal meeting. So, we haven't really gotten into this thing. The other thing that um maybe somebody
can enlighten me, possibly John, who's been our liaison to the board of health. Um has the board of health taken a position on this? This is truly uh about IAS which is under the jurisdiction of them
as a regulatory body. We are purely advisory. John, can I ask you that question? if you want to come up to the podium and >> talk about this a little because this has been one of your >> I have a copy of those letters if someone's missing them.
>> No, I've got it. I think Steve sent them to us. >> So I think Tom it's not I would disagree with Tom that it's absolutely critical that we send the draft RME with the letter. Uh the letter
is a a a draft letter to the selectman. Uh they're free once they get it to alter it any way that they would like. But if you will see the letter references >> I don't think that's what Tom meant. It's not what I meant when I said I
agreed with him. It's >> it's not not to send it. It's it's not to worry about the details until we have some reason rough idea of what D thinks about it.
>> George Hoyfelder has historically he within the last two months sent a letter to the head of D asking them to review what would be necessary for an RME. He heard back diddly. I think the
point here is we've got a draft RME. It has two sections which we'd like D to comment on. The monitoring and the reporting and that specifically is in the letter to the selectman asking D to
comment on those two sections. Right >> now, the RME draft that you got is clearly not what we're going to end up finally putting in our watershed permit, but it puts D on notice that there will
be an RME from Falmouth in our watershed permit. And this gives them an opportunity to specifically comment on those two areas. So the package that we send to the selectman
should both be the letter and the draft RME. >> And I agree completely. And the second thing that once you'll see in the letter that we've copied our legislators, uh once the selectmen have decided that
they would like to send that letter up to D, then uh we should approach our legislators and ask them to begin to turn the screws in Boston. Um yeah, I
just I wanted to limit the discussion today to the need to send the letter and obviously I think the proposal should travel with the letter because as you say the letter references some key points in the proposal. What I tried to
shorten today or eliminate completely is a detailed discussion of the fine points of the RME because that's a work in progress. And Ed's question, it was on the board of health selections Monday night. They did not have a quorum, so they did not meet.
>> Okay. So, are excuse me, are they on board with maybe co-signing that our letter to the select board? >> I can't speak to that. >> No, no, I'm >> George Hoyelder has worked worked jointly on this for a number of years.
The RME model that's there was one that we developed for the Oyster Pond CWMP seven years ago >> or something like that. So a lot of us have been thinking about it and uh
putting into it what we think would make a reasonable RME. >> Anybody Alan? I'm wonder well if I can make a comment about the letter. >> Absolutely. Okay. I I think that puts it in perspective John and u you know knowing where we stand with the board of
health when are they next up meeting do you know >> I would assume two weeks from this last Monday >> unless they had a they had a fairly heavy agenda so they may have decided to meet next Monday night >> but this is on their agenda or was on their agenda. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Go ahead
Alan. in view of the fact that we're starting to get draft watershed plans and you know we want to be reviewing those draft wershed plans and making any recommendations and so forth that we have and that getting answers to these
you know these questions that are part of you know this document um for so that we have that guidance. Can we put something in the letter not just saying we appreciate your consideration request you and welcome the opportunity to discuss this and so forth. Can we put
something like a time like put an some urgency to with a reason for some urgency and uh put a date in there by you know by September 30th or something like that like George hasn't heard back
>> when when do we plan to submit our watershed plans? We plan to have a draft Amy L wastewater superintendent. We plan to have a draft watershed plan for all of the wersheds by the end of the year,
but we won't be submitting that until uh later. We we have more time under the watershed permit regulations to finalize and submit. >> By when would you like to know that you can count on being able to use an RME?
I think it would be very helpful to know this fall what the what the town's thinking is, what the town would like to propose and get the DP's feedback on that. >> September 21st. >> I don't >> October 1st sounds good. But, you know,
anybody that wants to speak or questions, you know, ask to be recognized, please. So, we have some someone for So, I think that's a good suggestion. Alan, anybody else have any ideas, any thoughts on this, Tom? We've already heard from you, but any other things?
>> No, no. Like I said, I I I I'm trying to move it forward to generate a sense of urgency about this because if we don't get things resolved today, then another couple weeks from now, maybe the board of health considers what they want in their draft, and then
another week or two goes by and suddenly now we're looking at three months from when we started talking about it. And I know that managers would like to know where they're headed sometime in in advance of having to make their move. Um, so I I don't have anything else to
add to what I said. I I just think that it's a work in progress. We'll send along with what we've got at this point. Maybe we need to put a cover note in the cover letter that we're sending saying this is where we are right now. We would like some feedback on these couple of
key points that are going to be the crux of our planning um and get it to the selectman with our endorsement and hope I think that board of health who's in charge of this letter on this committee. >> Good question.
>> Well, it used to be John Waterberry, but >> I know that's why I said on this committee, >> right? >> I don't think it has a true spokesman. >> Drag him out of retirement as a minister. He's already spoken and he did a good job. >> Anybody want to volunteer for that assignment? >> Well, I mean, because I was going to
suggest I I I like Allen's idea of putting another sentence or paragraph in about October 1st in order to give them the watershed plans that they're demanding. >> Um or the exact grammar is up to whoever this
person is, >> right? Well, we need a grimarian, I guess. Um you know, I I'm comfortable with everything that's being said. I think it's going to be important that we stay up to speed and work closely with the board of health on this issue because
>> it is their jurisdiction to enforce and come up with the IIA policy for the town of Felmouth. Um >> Peter, any ideas from your end? I know this this is all probably kind of new to you, but >> this is the first time I've seen this
letter, so >> yeah. Um, >> understood. >> Generally, it's better to be early than late. >> I I think that's an important point that, you know, get something there and go on record and throw a date on it. I
think Allan, you had a great suggestion. Uh, can you have any thoughts? We've heard from everybody else. >> Well, I I think I think we should include a date. I think Allan's suggestion is really good, too. >> So, so in in line with he who suggests does. Yeah, I'd be happy I'd be happy to uh take on
>> Why don't we I move that we authorize Allan to put in such a >> um a date >> a date and uh we send it off as make it 2026, >> right? >> Yeah. I thought October one might be
perfectly reasonable. >> We throw something out there, get get >> get the meter running. Hopefully, we'll get a response. You know, I I had reached out to a contact that has normally been very responsive at D some months ago on this thing and the silence
was deafening. They just I don't think they understand the magnitude of what they're regulating. Go ahead, Alan. And I think what we ought to do when we do send this along to the select board, the administration select board for their review is explain why explain why this
is important and that it needs to move quickly because the end of the year whenever the the wershed plans are due is going to be is going to be here tomorrow basically. >> Oh yeah. >> Yeah. and uh without know without being able to have identification about the
monitoring requirements and so forth, we don't we're submitting a plan that's not really a plan. We're missing something, >> right? >> We're missing how to how to implement a key part of the plan. >> And this doesn't have to come back to this committee at our next meeting. You guys can just do it. I I suggest too
that when Allan's got his draft that the copy go to everybody on the committee for last comments and then yes, we're already saying we're going to send this. >> I'm I'm going to make that motion that >> Okay, we got a motion on the floor to
send a letter with >> make the motion to send the letter with the operations that Allan has brought up and mentioned. And um do are we going to have to have a personal signature page on our endorsement? I think not. I think we just send it in and say
>> I don't see the need for that. >> I'm recording whatever the vote is. >> I'll sign something. >> Question. >> Okay. Uh motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Discussion. All those in favor? >> I. >> So moved. >> Who has the word version of this? I
think I just have a John. >> John, if you can email me the word version. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Um, now next we um Amy has made it. Thank goodness. I think we'll give Amy the floor. She has been postponed for meeting after meeting after meeting. So
Amy, your turn. >> I sincerely apologize for being late. Uh, I forgot all about the um Main Street event. So password. I got to log in here.
I might as well have walked from DPW. >> I did walk. I walked from past. >> Oh, look at us. We're in. >> Someone knew how to operate that machine. >> Yeah. And then we need
>> We are technically challenged. >> Yeah. >> But one of our alumnists, Mr. Rafferty, was able to make it happen. >> Excellent. >> Wake it up. All right. So, wershed management
planning update. Um, I I added back uh three or so slides that have been in earlier presentations because we have a couple of new members on the board. So, I wanted to go back and I apologize for repeating myself, but I also don't want to jump in without giving the
background. Um, so I'm Amy Lol. I'm the wastewater superintendent and um we're talking about wershed planning. So the wershed permit regulations were passed in 2023 and they designated the wersheds to ponds with total maximum daily load
limits or TMDLs for nitrogen as nitrogen sensitive areas. The map on the blue shows the um the uh nitrogen sensitive areas in Falmouth that are designated by DP. So those are watersheds to ponds
with nitrogen load limits. uh watersheds to ponds that are impaired by nitrogen. Uh that the watershed permit regulations required either IAS or nitrogen removing septic systems to be installed on on all
properties in these NSAs within 5 years or for towns to prepare watershed plans and apply for wershed permits for all nitrogen sensitive areas by 2030. Falmouth uh committed to uh preparing watershed plans and applying for
watershed permits by 2030, i.e. option B there. Uh so that's the process we're in right now. So note that we're required to apply for all of the permits by 2030. Uh we did submit a preliminary outline
of when we expected to submit those plans. Our concept for how we're doing this has evolved a little bit. So um that is u um a work in progress. Uh but we there's a lot of work to do. So you're right that it is definitely in
our interest to proceed on all of these things and get feedback on the RE concept. Um the the in the past the town has planned um for some areas of town because focusing on this large an area is pretty overwhelming and it's a lot of
work. But doing this one draft watershed plan for all of the state designated nitrogen sensitive areas will include a plan to meet the TMDLs for the nitrogen TMDLs for each watershed. Um it will define the sewer areas and the IIA areas
and the FA phasing and schedule for each through 2050 and it will identify other nutri nutrient reduction plans nutrient reduction plan components in each watershed. um that will en enable the town to do an overall project cost
estimate instead of an estimate just for pieces of this work and an overall schedule so that the town can better prepare for overall financing. Um it involves coordination among town departments uh most namely the the the
wastewater division within department of public works and the board of health or the health department and the the planning department as well as of course um well this will need to go to through the select board. So there is a lot of coordination and discussion that is will
be necessary and the plans in the end will be phased and adaptive. Um there's a lot of work to be done and it's very expensive and it's going to take a long time. There will be monitoring and opportunities for adjustment along the way. Funding f scope and schedule funds were
appropriated at the November 2025 town meeting for preparing a draft watershed management plan which is what we're working on now. the scope of work, the way it's been um designed is this project is being um where the town is getting assistance both from GHD, a big
engineering firm, and ScienceWarses, which is a much smaller firm. Kristen Rathjen, who's been supporting this committee for a number of years and has done a lot of preliminary watershed planning with the water quality management committee, is very involved
in this work. Um the draft plan uh I said and deir I should have cut that. I'm sorry. We're no longer planning to do a an environmental impact report associated with this. I don't want to talk too much about that now, but that is no longer a part of a required part of the scope for this plan. Uh so the
plan is to have a draft watershed management plan by the end of 2026. And that really at this point is an internal draft meaning internal to the town. Um once we have a a draft plan for the town
to discuss as a whole and to look at for financing and scheduling and these RME questions, what department is going to be responsible and how are they going to staff that? Uh then once we've worked out some of those issues, we can finalize this um and submit it um in
parts or in whole with each of the wershed permit applications for each of the wersheds on or before the dates that we previously committed through the end of 2029 to meet the regulations 2030 deadline. So now we're off of the old information
and I wanted to talk before getting into the uh watershed management plan concepts and all the details of that. I wanted to talk a bit about how this how this work is being done. Um so Christian Wrath Jen is not here. She's on a
muchdeserved vacation this week, but she has done an enormous amount of the uh planning work and the math and the you know the the figuring out how to how to make these plans work. Um but the plans are pretty detailed and complicated. I
wanted to just talk about the process overall. So the general strategy for drafting the plans to meet the nitrogen load limits is uh for sewering for sewer areas the sewing will continue to be focused in the areas of densest development uh closest to the impaired
coastal ponds and closest to other sewer areas. Uh so we're not starting from scratch on the town's watershed uh planning or the town's sewer planning. The sewer areas will generally be the core of them is where we've outlined in
previous town plans. Um there will be some refinement around the edges um where we haven't done as much planning in the past but it but the we're not starting from scratch here. Uh where required to meet the nitrogen TMDLs sewer areas may be outlined for
additional phases beyond those previously planned. Um, for example, in Great Pond and Wakoy Bay wershed, uh, there is an enormous amount of nitrogen to be removed. So, the first phases of sewing that have been in the town's planning for a long time on the
peninsulas south of Route 28, those phases are a huge amount of progress, but they do not remove all of the nitrogen load that is required to meet the TMDL. So these plans will include where required, excuse me, most notably in Great Pond
watershed and McCoy Bay wershed, additional sewering beyond those southern south coast peninsulas. Um and those will be future phases. Uh these are these are phases that will be out probably even beyond 15 20 years in our
plans because of the cost and the scale of the sewing that the town has already committed to. Um so that's it for sewering. There were also an very important part of this plan is nitrogen removing septic systems. Um in wersheds where sewers are
not planned due to less dense development um uh less nitrogen removal required to meet the water quality goals and due to distance from other sewer areas. Uh the load limits the nitrogen load limits will be met primarily with
nitrogen removing septic systems. So, those who've been on the committee for a while know that the um the town has 14 impaired coastal ponds. Um that these blue areas are the wersheds to all of them. In general, these watersheds along
the the Buzzards Bay side of town. Uh these are less impaired um waterheds. They have wider inlets and less densely developed wheds in general. So these wersheds can we can meet their TMDLs in
general with uh IIA systems. Not entirely we will discuss uh potential expanded sewering in the wild harbor watershed but in general these these TMDLs can be met with um IA areas um with nitrogen removing septic system
areas. Um nitrogen removing septic systems will also be required in some watersheds where more nitrogen removal is required uh beyond what we're planning to do via sewering. So for example in um Great
Pond, Green Pond, Bournes Pond, Woy Bay, Eel Pond, we you know we may have a sewer area that is say south of 28 or near 28 but then in the upper wershed beyond that require additional um nitrogen removing septic systems in the
less densely developed area that is further from the uh from the water body. uh we may have IIA areas uh nitrogen removing septic system areas required in in those portions of the wershed. So there are other nitrogen removing
strategies and credits in these in these plans. Um we are planning to honor in these plans to meet the TMDLs. We're showing aquaculture where it's been proposed by the marine environmental services division. So we're not trying to reinvent the wheel on that. the
Marine Environmental Services Division, particular Chuck Martinsson, has done an enormous amount of work and planning um to lay out where aquaculture could be uh um employed in um in Falmouth's coastal
ponds. So, we're assuming that PRBs may be proposed or permeable reactive barriers may be proposed in some of these wersheds where they would be prot potentially effective. uh they are not a major part of the plan but there there will be likely a couple of of permeable
reactor barriers planned. There also credits for fertilizer reduction um storm wise storm water management and the plans also assume a reduction in atmospheric deposition nitrogen because there have been studies shown excellent
studies showing that atmospheric deposition of nitrogen has decreased over time over recent years because of uh reduction in coal fired plants with dirtier coal. Um so in general the delineation of both sewer and nitrogen removing septic
system areas is pretty simple. It's they're being delineated um by starting closest to the impaired coastal pond and moving up the watershed until we've removed enough load to meet the TMDL given all the other loading factors. Um,
so this may seem obvious, but um, I don't want there to be mystery about out there about how we are determining these these IIA areas. It's pretty simple. We're starting up at the co starting at the coastal pond and moving moving away
from it. Uh, until we've met until the math works, until you met the TMDL. Um, I wanted to outline how the nitrogen removal credit is being assigned for these different things. For sewering, we're assuming that 100% of the nitrogen
load um is removed by sewering. meaning the nitrogen load that's coming from septic systems is removed 100% by sewering because we're um and that's assuming tertiary treatment meaning taking that wastewater to our existing tertiary treatment plant in West Famouth
and discharging through the outfall that the town is working hard to permit right now for nitrogen removing septic systems. Our prefer preferred plan scenarios which I'll outline in a minute assume that 10 milligrams per liter is
achieved by these nitrogen removing septic systems. Note that credit meaning the amount of nitrogen removal that we're talking about is reduced for every technology based on uh where it is in may be reduced based on where it is in the
wershed. So the the planning documents that arrived at these uh nitrogen loan limits assumed that um when the groundwater moves through a freshwater pond or through a um a freshwater stream, the the bacteria along that
surface re reduce a certain amount of nitrogen. Um and so that attenuation um obviously you know you're still removing the nitrogen but in the end you get less credit for it because um you're getting attenuation through the
freshwater ponds. So that that makes the math and the co the the calculations a little bit more complicated for the wershed planning. Other nitrogen removal strategies um we're going with the agreed upon credits for aquaculture and PRBs that don't ask me questions about
that. That's really a Kristen question. Uh she knows the details of where we are for that. We've been assuming a standard 25% credit for fertilizer reduction, 25% for storm water management through best management practices, and again that 41%
reduction in the atmospheric deposition. And when I'm talking about percentages for these last three things, those are a percent from when in in the original planning document, what was the assumed nitrogen load coming from each of those sources? We're assuming we can remove
25% or 41% of each of those factors um through each of these mechanisms or are being removed through each of these mechanisms. Last in uh introductory slide here. >> Amy, can I
>> Yes, sir. >> Um, do you think it's appropriate to put anything in that section about the future possibility of source separation, urine diversion, that sort of thing. I
know it's still it's a lot of people think it's crazy and it hasn't been approved yet, but there are a lot of people that are in love with it and so >> some very good numbers associated with it. >> Right. So this bullet number two, we are no longer calling IAS, we're calling
nitrogen removing septic systems which can include a nitrogen reduction. So I think the same. So this is again Kristen could do could I'm estimating based on
my understanding of how Kristen is doing this but I I believe that the 10 milligrams per liter is uh about a 60% reduction. Um, so you could if if if we end up getting if we end up getting that
kind of credit um through the pilot projects, if we end up documenting that kind of a credit, then um I'm assuming that um uh urine diverting systems would qualify in that category. At this point, we're not going to try to make a
separate quantity in each of these plans for that kind of system. What we're doing, what we're saying is in a certain area we're going to have nitrogen removing septic systems. If ultimately some of those are urine diversion, terrific they can, you know, get that
assuming it goes through the pilot project and gets, you know, gets we get the agreed upon credit for that, it would fit in that category. I'm just suggesting that if you adjust the language just a little bit to admit of that possibility, >> okay,
>> then there's a lot fewer objections that we have to listen to. Okay. I I would suggest this that we just >> in some wording say >> plus any new emerging and technologies as they uh come online to that effect
that the door is not closed. It's a live document. Things will change. IAS may get better. Urine diversion which has great potential may be eventually approved and some mass balance but to reference the fact that there are going
to be additions to our toolbox. >> Yep. >> And just leave it at that because >> I think that can definitely be incorporated into the plan. >> Um >> uh wait a minute. Uh any anybody that wants to be recognized,
please wait for the chair to recognize you. A gentleman in the back has had his hand up before you. Steve, you have to come up to the podium, identify yourself, and ask your question. >> Thought that was only required for regulatory meetings. Um Dan Walsh, precinct 3. So the question actually for
Amy, all I'm trying to figure out is when you say agreed upon credits, who's agreed that those are the right credits? I just don't know what organizations have said they agree to that. >> So this was my shortorthhand. Um I think as I said that's a good question for
Kristen to address and I'm not going into a lot of detail. There is an assumption within our planning process for what will be achieved for um by aquaculture and by PRBs and that is um
so you're right that's perhaps not the way best way to describe it. What I'm just so we can provide that detail in the report and Kristen can follow up in a different presentation. I was not prepared to go into that level of detail in this presentation.
>> Thank you Amy. for detail on that issue. >> You're also okay. You know, to keep the presentation flowing along, I will recognize the brief questions but not get into an extensive dialogue and derail the whole thing. So, please proceed.
>> Um um Steve pointed out that through the watershed planning process, there are opportunities there's a requirement to update your plan. um well to provide a an update regarding your progress every
five years. And so that will be a good opportunity to um introduce for example a an a new option to use urine diversion or to use composting toilets or whatever at a 5-year update interval is one way
to consider handling that. So the plans for each watershed this is I'm talking about this in this slide because it can be pretty confusing going through these um and we have basically we have to look at each of these wersheds in several different ways and
we have changed our titles for these things several times already uh just in internally and uh I'm trying out these new titles. So we have to start with for each watershed a preferred compliance plan with the caveat that in several
wersheds again like great pond and wukcoy bay this may be a three-phase plan um and that you know the first phase may take take place in six years and the next phase in 15 years and then some of it may even be 20 plus years out
um but there's a preferred compliance plan uh which assumes the following nitrogen load reductions As I said previously, it assumes nitrogen removing septic systems achieve 10 milligrams per liter liter. It assume assumes that with
through the town's fertilizer bylaw and potentially through better enforcement of that in the future uh that 25% of attenuated nitrogen load from 25% of the nitrogen load from fertilizer is is reduced. 25% of the attenuated nitrogen
load from imperous surfaces surfaces um is reduced and again that 41% atmospheric deposition. There is an additional scenario which is described in the uh watershed permit regulations. So it's a D required
contingency compliance plan. The DP says that you're supposed to include a contingency plan that relies only on conventional technologies. So you can't you they want to you to show a backup plan if for example aquaculture is not
pro proven to remove nitrogen or sufficient nitrogen or if um your IAS which you say are um going to achieve 10 milligrams per liter are only achieving 19 milligrams per liter and um and it
assumes it wants us also to assume zero credit for all the various things. So we are Kristen has been developing these plans. We have no intention of putting making those be our found our plan in the in the the watershed town's wershed
management plan will not be those plans. They are extremely conservative, extremely expensive and end up committing the town to doing more than we believe we need to do. So Kristen is coming up with those plans but that is
not the proposed plan. There's also a preferred contingency compliance plan and this is a moderated version of that compliance that contingency compliant plan. It's assuming nitrogen removing septic systems achieve 12 milligrams per liter
not 10 not 19 and it's assuming half of the credits that we assumed in that under that first bullet for aquaculture for fertilizer and storm water. We do still assume the atmospheric deposition reduction because as I mentioned before
that's been pretty well documented. So now finally on so Kristen had reviewed over last year Kristen went through some some IA area plans with uh with the with the water quality
management committee for all of the wersheds. uh we're now going back through those and and looking at them with sort of through the process that I just outlined. Um and uh so the only one that I think's been presented here under
this new concept is um Little Pond, which the town has done any uh done the sewing in and we believe it's it's going to meet the TMDL based on what we've done. Um, the next one to review today, I have a whole bunch of them that she prepared, but I think I'm only going to go for through the first two today
because it's complicated and there's a, you know, well, it'll take more meetings. Fiddler's Cove here on the uh west side of town is a small um small water body, coastal water body uh with a long skinny uh watershed that stretches
roughly west to east uh a little bit north. Actually, this is rotated a bit. Um, and I'm going to just show all this at once. So, the draft preferred compliance plan. So, what
another thing I wanted to make pe make sure people know is this isn't the town's plan. This is Kristen and GHD and I presenting something for initial discussion. these each of these concepts has to go through um we will want to
talk with the board of health about these as well and talk with the larger you know the public as a whole about these. So this is for discussion that is this is not the town's final plan by any stretch. Uh so this is a draft preferred
compliance plan. Um it assumes so we we have Kristen has in these previous in her previous presentations gone through a lot of detail on this. I apologize it is pretty complicated but um in this map
you can see the purple area well I'll start with um the yellow yellow are existing she's calling them IAS nitrogen removing septic systems so there are a few of those in the watershed already the purple is the septic septic nitrogen
reduction district which is again assuming nitrogen removing septic systems at 10 milligrams per liter um yeah 60 62% % reduction. She says here, I estimated 60% when we were talking about it before. Uh so that's 41 parcels
that are within about a one-year travel time uh of the watershed. Um the orange properties well so we'll we'll hold on that. So um just going through her her table um the top number
is the is the number from the total maximum daily load report. That's the total amount of nitrogen that can go to the wershed from these controllable sources um and um
and meet the TMDL. Is that right? I want to make sure. target. So that's the total controllable load. The target is the controllable threshold load that will um that we want to get to to meet the TMDL.
Um so that 1,230 is what we want to reduce the uh nitrogen load to that the load that's within our control in order to improve water quality in this pond. Um so this
table goes through and it says the existing IAS are removing a certain amount of nitrogen. The uh the the next this district the uh requiring these IAS will remove 266 kilograms of nitrogen per year and then there's the additional
load removal from these other factors that I mentioned. Um here we're talking about so 2026 is where we are now with no implementation. Um and it and it shows that we are um
about 34% of the way to the TMDL. Meaning we have we have this number is greater than this number. So we have work to do in order to meet the TMDL. If we implemented this town this plan and there was no growth, we would be we would achieve more than 100% of the
TMDL. this this number is a little lower than this number. So if we implement these IAS and we assume these these factors we get to the TMDL with no growth. Um let's see the one other thing that she's noted here. Um well she's
noted a couple of things. There's no suitable shellfish areas identified by mees in this pond. Um and this only only including direct abutters only achieves 83.6 6% of the goal. So I think that's
in talking about growth. Light green parcels have no current septic load and are not likely to have a future load per the MVP database. So that's a one other clarification about the colors. The the tan are um other developed parcels in
the in the area. The green are um the green are basically undeveloped, not likely to and unlikely to have a uh a future contribute a future load. Um,
so this this next uh so now she's now we're seeing the buildout. Um that if you uh if you take into account buildout, we're still very close to meeting the nitrogen load for this uh watershed. Um um and
um we're very close but not quite there. Um so the key factors supporting the rel reliability of this preferred plan there's a lot of conservatism in the required contingency assumptions. Uh sampling data has demonstrated that
nitrogen reducing septic systems can a can reliably average a lot less than or less than 19 milligrams per liter. Atmospheric deposition is a known reduction uh since the MEP the state's model was created and the town is
actively collecting data for the multiple technologies included in the plan. Um even if the alternatives do not perform as well as anticipated um there will still be some benefit. >> Amy, >> yes. Go. >> Did you just already go back to this is the previous slide, right?
>> No, it looks like it but it's not. >> Go back to the previous one. >> This one? Yep. or I'll really go crazy. Um, so for those numbers, you've assumed
the 19 milligrams. >> Nope. Uh, it's 10. Here we're saying 10. What What the point was that? Sorry. The point was that we we feel comfortable assuming this. >> Uh, >> yes. But then in your next slide, right,
>> you're saying that you're >> I think it shouldn't have been worded. >> You're doing well because you're being conservative since you're so much better than 19 implies that you were using 19. >> I understand. >> And you admit you're really using 10. So, >> yep. I I think you're right that that's not very clear and we will change the
wording on that. >> Um, so this is, as I mentioned, the D requires a contingency plan that uses only conventional technologies and assumes zero credit for alternatives. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this because again this is not what we
plan to do. But if you follow those assumptions, you assume that septic system the alternative septic systems only achieve 19 milligrams per liter in their effluent. Um you would then need to add all of these additional blue
parcels in blue to your IIA district. Um and uh you would then you could then meet the uh TMDL with no growth. Um but uh it's an awful lot of IAS um even
quite far from the water from the coastal pond. Uh so this is a preferred contingency plan. Um and this the way I envision this is that we would start with the contingency plan and the or excuse me
start with the preferred plan what we showed here. start with this smaller IIA district and and monitor over time and if in uh 15 years we're not seeing the improvement we want uh then we go to uh we expand
the IIA area to include these light purple areas here um so this is a small watershed um and so it's you know it's a it's a good one to start with to to talk about this obviously it gets a lot more complicated
uh and visually exciting when you get to the bigger watersheds. Yeah. I'm sorry. >> Um >> it's up to the chair with >> Oh, wait. Go ahead. So, uh within you said 15 years is that >> I just threw that out there. I'm saying
that over time the town the town can re-evaluate. >> The question I guess I have is is once plans submitted, plans accepted by the state blah blah blah. Now implements implementation I understand is 20 years all has to be done in >> we're supposed to meet we're supposed to
have a plan that meets the TMDL within 20 years we do not believe that can happen for great pond or wo bay but for for fiddler's cove we think it could be >> my my question is related to
>> um I know we've discussed this before how do we get what's the phasing for getting people to upgrade their >> I don't know yet. We'll have to talk about that. Um I think the first step is to show agree on a map about what the
what area would meet the TMDL and and that that's the area we want to target and a next step is to figure out how to make how to make that happen through the RME or an additional step. I don't I don't those things can happen in parallel but uh we need to figure out
who's going to enforce this and make it happen how it's going to be monitored and what the phasing will be. uh it doesn't make sense to require all of these purple areas, all of these upgrades in the first year because it it's not realistic. Right. Right. Uh people can't do that. The town, you
know, so we will have to >> we don't have the construction capacity to do it, >> right? And it uh when we talk about RME, we are that's obviously a really important part of of this IIA part of the or this nitro nitrogen removing
septic system part of the plan. the the town does not have currently have the capacity to do all of the enforcement and management and monitoring that is needed to make this this big a part of our plan. So, that's
a big part of the discussion is does the town beef up its its uh health department staffing? Do we pay the county some amount of money per year to to manage that? That's an important part of the discussion. But what I'm talking
about right here is what's what does the load reduction look like on a map? >> But but what I think Ken is another way of expressing what Ken is mentioning is perhaps you need a slide that shows
not what we can do or how long things take but what the state allows their various deadlines. In other words, the the the plan we like has to be installed within 20 years. Right.
>> Right. I So >> then how long do you after that does it have to be shown to work because travel time to the ground? >> They haven't said >> and then how long do you have to fix it if it didn't work? And so >> they haven't said those things. So, I
think the town will need to propose its own in in the watershed permit. The town will need to propose its own answer to those questions. Um, and the DP can, you know, buy it or not buy it and then we we talk more about it.
>> What triggered my question really was the light purple versus the dark purple. >> Yeah. You can't get to the D light purple until you've really done the whole thing and seen whether it worked, right? You
can't you wouldn't be requiring additional uh work until some long period of time had passed. >> That is that's what I envision. Yes. >> Yeah. So >> I think Yes. >> That's why when you said 15 years that I
see you think that's too soon. my ear it's like wait a second we haven't even had the 20 years to find out if to get it all done and see whether it works. >> Yep. We don't have to take 20 years it to get these done. We can you know where where feasible we can you know
>> I think it's really easy with a discrete sewage project to get it done. It's much more challenging obviously for a diffuse thing like upgrading people's septic systems. >> Yep. >> We're not going to solve the details of that. tonight. We know it's a monster.
The whole IIA policy and implementation, the evolution of the technology, the approval of the technology, there's nothing approved for general use at these levels of performance. But rather than bog down into those details, I suggest let's continue this presentation so we get through it.
>> Okay, we're only going to try to get through one other one. >> Um I don't how much do you have time to go through one another one? Okay. Uh well so this is the data from the monitoring at the Fiddler's Cove uh station. Um so the water quality
monitoring over time is it's been variable. Uh the the nitrogen concentration is generally above the threshold. Uh but it's been variable. Um and Kristen was clarifying nutrient monitoring is not actually conducted at the Sentinel station. It's uh conducted,
it's presented from this long-term monitoring station which has a and also an a target target threshold. This is a strange little This is an odd little example within the town. It's a it's a small coastal pond uh that part of much
much of which is man-made. So, it's a very altered environment. Um, and this is Kristen has also excerpted data from the Buzzards Bay Coalition's website where they provide the health index summary. So this figure is just average
nitrogen concentration over time. These they're looking at not only nitrogen but also dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and algaal pigments to give the pond a score uh an a health score which they're showing is a 60.
Um this um the historically mapped eelgrass is and was outside of Fiddler's Cove. So illass restoration is not a goal for this pond. Rans canal also on the um west coast on
the Buzzards Bay side of Falmouth also with a long east west north watershed. Um, Ran's Canal is um it's an also a strange little water a little pond with a lot a big water that's got this long
waterhed. It's it's got two forks. It also, as you can see, has two freshwater ponds close by. Um, uh, Cedar Lake. No, yeah, Cedar Lake and Trout Pond. I believe that's Trout Pond is the one to the south of that.
Um so the draft pre preferred plan does achieve the um the nitrogen uh goal for this pond. Um it does not achieve it for buildout. Um
so again this is our target load 1610 kilograms of nitrogen per year coming from the watershed that with within the town's control. Um and um there are a
few these yellow are existing uh nitrogen removing septic systems. The purple is the proposed uh nitrogen reduction uh septic nitrogen reduction district at 10 milligrams per liter uh
which is 188 parcels. Um there is also I can't see it here but apparently a little bit of aquaculture in this map. I think it's along the sides of one of these u um arms of the cove of the canal. Um
and um I think we will skip to the next one. Ah that her this shows the uh the little aquaer aquaculture areas. If you can see the dark blue um areas on either side of
the of the canal are proposed by MEES as aquaculture areas within the um within the pond. Um, so this is zooming out to show a little bit more of it. The green is a lot of area. There's a lot of area in the outside or in the upper portion
or distant portions of this wershed that are vacant and not expected to be developed. Um, uh there's um so so this is this is showing that there's not there's a fair amount of it that we do not expect to develop in the future.
Um the D required compliance plan um again only conventional technologies requires IAS on uh nitrogen removing septic systems on all parcels in the wershed and it still doesn't achieve the
target because it's assuming we achieve nothing with aquaculture. We have no fertilizer reduction, no storm water reduction, no atmospheric deposition, and that the septic systems are all getting nitrogen 19 milligrams per liter. So again, this is meeting the
DP's requirement to show this plan. We do not plan to do this. We don't believe that this is necessary. Um so the preferred contingency compliance plan uh is um is quite still
quite a few uh additional nitrogen removing septic systems in the wershed. It's it's um the remaining 182 parcels west of Route 28. Um and it assumes again nitrogen removing septic systems
are achieving 12 milligrams per liter. Um this does achieve the um the goal the TMDL goal with no growth. Uh if there is growth to buildout it does not quite achieve it.
Uh so we would need further discussion uh and monitoring as we go along to decide. We'd need to manage growth and also um have ongoing discussion about what you know discussion in the future about what if anything additional should
be done. Um any other questions on this? >> One one point I would raise is assuming some buildout x number of houses >> under the now recently implemented board
of health mandate. >> Yep. >> They must install best available nitrogen reduction technology. Yeah. >> Does that impact that number? It should be part of the calculation >> and it is that's this this number here
is buildout reduction resulting from the board of health 10 milligram per liter mandate. >> So that would just affect if those houses were built on a parcel. Compliance with that is that 1,200. >> Right. So we're we we don't meet the the theoretical buildout nitrogen load
removal if even with that require that that new IA even with the board of health's uh 10 milligram per liter requirement. Um it it does it has a huge impact. I'm a big
fan of because this so this is where you see the the benefit that we all were hoping from the board of health mandate which is it's not helping us with existing load but when new development occurs it will contribute less of a load
to these impaired water bodies and give the town less to make up for in the future. It's still, you know, the buildout's still a problem. is still a challenge but it's less of a challenge >> is is a good way to look at that is to
look at that 1,200 that you have down reduction but then up above it you have almost 4200 which is the increase from it right so the the actual increase is the the 4181
minus the 1200 >> um >> or am I misunderstanding that >> so I believe that is total load at buildout. So that so this is again a much bigger than any other number on
that slide, >> right? But I I believe that is the build that is the existing plus buildout number like that's that's existing load plus the additional load from buildout. >> Okay. Even if you subtract the existing
from that it's still a big number. It's still big compared to 1,200. >> Yes. Right. So if you you take So again, I'm working with Kristen has done the most work on these tables. So um forgive me if I'm I don't know the details, but
I believe that that number you would subtract 2242 from 41.81 to get the the additional load at buildout. >> Yeah. I I just don't want anybody thinking that by building more houses you get less nitrogen.
No, we get less nitrogen than we would have if they didn't include >> built them without >> nitrogen removing septic systems. Um, so the most recent data point for RANs canal, RANs harbor station is is
actually low, but there's a history of high. So we will continue to monitor. I wouldn't take this trend as uh, you know, necessarily significant. We will see over time. Uh there are several stations. So you see the red dot. This
is different monitoring stations within this small system. Uh so this station you can see is stayed almost entirely above the threshold for the um for that part of the harbor. Uh and then here is
the um Buzzards Bay Coalition's data. Um again showing decline and a relative a fair rating. Uh and there's uh all mapped seaggrass or eelgrass is outside
of Rans Canal. So eelgrass is not uh a an ecological goal uh for this harbor. So I think that's probably enough for today. Um there are a lot more to look at but that's a good introduction. >> Okay.
>> Any I So Ed, if you want to have any other discussion, I'm just saying that's all I wanted. going to have to limit it because you know we do have one more significant item on the agenda number six which is the quashionate letter that we've been playing with for months. Uh but go ahead Peter.
>> Okay. Uh I I don't want to question the details of but the overall plan doesn't include something that we have used in the past is um we have had um opening up
of the ponds and estuaries and uh flushing out and I I'm not sure how that fits. fits in the category of reducing the nitrogen but uh in little
pond in board's pond there was an analysis done to say that it was the most economical method to reducing the uh nitrogen and this report doesn't
refer to that uh system at all >> right so um people who look at these things have looked at all of the ponds and have determined that opening the inlets would not improve would would not
make a difference in the uh load uh nitrogen load management for the pond for most of these ponds because their inlets are not limiting the the flushing in and out. But they did identify Little Pond and Bourne's pond as to where it
could help. Uh it wouldn't do the job entirely, but it would help. Um little pond the town has not um moved forward with um because there was a lot of because we believe we can get there with sewing and that that sewing has been
completed. Borne Pond, the town has been trying to move forward with that since the money was appropriated originally in 2014 and that uh hopefully that project is able to move forward this fall. uh but it has been very difficult as far as
permitting and just getting it off the ground. So the town does plan has been working for uh 12 years now to try to move forward with that recommendation for Bourne's pond, but it was not a
recommendation of the modelers for any of the other ponds because uh widening the inlets wasn't going to significantly improve the flushing of these other ponds. Uh just one followup. Uh I know that
uh town uh dredges some openings uh on a periodic basis with uh with navigation problems. And if the original channel
was 10 feet deep and boers don't uh do the dredging again with three feet deep, maybe the modeling uh has already looked at that variation and maybe it's
not. There is uh a benefit to an interest in maintenance dredging for some of these ponds and that is in the jurisdiction and management of the marine
environmental services department. Um so there is there that is helpful in some of these ponds and a lot of people would prefer that it be done more regularly. um we are limited by the county the
availability of dredging equipment and uh by um the just the resources overall for that. So it is a good point and it is something that does regularly come up. Um those are the limiting factors for it.
>> So it's not deserving of any reference in the report. So it it is um it is something that is recommended and should be done. It does not eliminate the requirement for any of
these other things. It would it would potentially help uh improve the situation um from where it is if it's not dredged, but it doesn't eliminate the requirements for nitrogen removal from other um in all the ways that we
were just describing. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? >> Yes, I have one. >> Go ahead, Ken. >> So, the buildout scenarios um are con are based on standard zoning density limitations. Is that correct?
>> So, we've looked at buildout in a in a number of different ways. We being the the team working on this, GHD and Kristen with ScienceWarses and me and we've talked with the town planner and the health department about this. The what we looked at is both the buildout
estimates projections that were in the Massachusetts estuaries project reports and we have compared those to and those are really they're based all of the all of the analysis is based on water use metered water use converted to
wastewater flow. Um, so really what we did was compare future water use that was in the Massachusetts estuaries project reports for buildout to the change between those reports and now for water use. So
there's been some buildout since um the MEP reports, but we're nowhere near where the uh where they had projected buildout would occur. Uh, we did I thought I think Kristen presented about this at a previous meeting, but if she didn't, we can bring that back.
>> The details. Let Ken drop the other shoe. >> Well, what I'm trying to get at is that, >> you know, right now the planning board's considering, for example, allowing buy duplexes in in all districts as I understand it. Y >> uh there's strong pressure under chapter
40B. We certainly need affordable housing. That's not the question the issue but um I guess I'm wondering what hap you know these are cross purposes. >> Yeah. >> And on the one hand we're trying to you
know reduce loading to these ponds and on the other hand we're we're increasing density to support affordable housing. Um which there may be other ways of doing besides just building new. So that's my personal feeling. But um and I
don't know if there's even been any kind of court test as to which would prevail >> if the two regulatory, you know, issues came to to to head to a head with each other. So I'm just
>> right >> throwing that out there for your concern. So our we basically have looked at how much development has has has occurred or how much the water use has increased over the past 20 years let's say and it's you know it's it's it's one
rate you know and and the MEP rate was a higher rate so those MEP projections for almost all the ponds it was substantially higher if the town changes its regulations to allow more development it'll it'll be even higher
and these These projections are all off. The town would need these growth would growth beyond what we've been envisioning will change this this picture entirely. So, I I just put that
out there as maybe something that uh the water quality management committee should think about raising as a danger, >> y >> a threat because we're going to invest millions and millions of dollars trying
to fix this problem and you know it's like swimming against the current if >> Yep. It's beyond the scope of tonight's presentation. It's an excellent point and one of the things going forward I want this committee to look at is
>> where are we going from here? Where does this committee see its mission? How are we going to accomplish it? And what are the key things that we want to be part of the discussion and have we feel valuable input to the town as a whole. But that's not what we're going to get
to tonight. That'll be a future agenda item in and in the notistant future. Right. But tonight's discussion, let's we want to complete this discussion. Uh I'll take a couple of brief questions from the audience. Um I want to just give it maybe uh Earl I think you've had your hand up for a while and then the
lady there behind you if you if you want to come up ma'am and you know be ready so that we keep things moving just come up when Earl's done. >> Uh yes Earl Barnhart Green Center. Um I
have two things. One is these plans uh state that the IAS uh some of them ideally would be 10 milligrams per liter. That would um reduce the nitrogen by 62%.
Some of them would be 12 milligrams per liter which would be worse than 6 less than 62%. Um there's lots of evidence that several approved source separation technologies such as composting toilets and
incinerating toilets will reduce 90% of the nitrogen from a house. Much higher than 62% or whatever 12 milligs per liter is. I would like these plans to specifically state that if a house is required and mandrated to put in an IIA
of any kind, 10 or 12, the property owner has the choice to install one of these other source separation systems that do as well or better than the mandated IAS. I want it stated in the plan that they could do that. The other
thing is um I disagree with Ed about the uh putting in some vague language about if new technologies come along maybe we will consider them maybe in five years when the review period comes along maybe as Amy has said after 15 years in this
watershed uh maybe if we haven't she said if we haven't seen the improvement we want we'll do something that's not good enough I that does it gives me no confidence whatsoever that there's a method for quickly including and adding new improved technologies that come
along. >> Okay, we we we understand your position Earl and I think it's valid. Um this is a live document that will be reviewed for how it's doing every 5 years and certainly alternate technologies as they come online and show and get approval
and acceptance by the state will become part of it. Go ahead ma'am. Introduce yourself. I am Joyce Bach, friends of Cedar Lake. And Cedar Lake is part of that Rance Canal watershed as you've seen. So I have two quick questions or or a comment and a question. My comment
is that a good portion of the surrounding coastline of Cedar Lake is under that mandated IIA purple color. um which is all well and good except we all know that an even bigger problem for
freshwater ponds is too much phosphorus. So my my comment is and and question is what will we do um to provide for the possibility of future phosphorus removal
IA systems if we've already mandated people to put in nitrogen removal systems you know what what provision is there going to be for a butters to freshwater ponds so that they're not mandated to do a nitrogen removal thing
and then as a viable phosphorus removal process comes online, do we have to do it all over again? >> And I think it >> it's a good question, but something that's being looked at by the uh freshwater ponds advisory committee.
>> Yes. And I was there at Amy's presentation um a couple weeks ago, so I know it's being thought about, but I thought it was important to mention here as well. >> Right. Good. Thank you. That's that's important perspective that you bring to this and it's certainly something that
we've talked about and I know other parts of town committees are looking at that particular issue of the phosphorous >> defect. And so my my other question is as these plans become more well- definfined, more developed and you have
a pretty solid plan in mind. How are you going to communicate this to the general public? This this is where we start as a committee to have a forum like this and a presentation by Amy and Kristen over the past several years and then to do
outreach to the community as something changes as something becomes requiring a vote and approval and acceptance by the town. There is a scheduled presentation on the outfall in another week to present to the community at large and give them a chance to ask these
questions. So, we're very cognizant of the need for education and outreach and to get input from the community. So, I >> and I I would just suggest that rather than expect people to come here that you go to the people that maybe by precinct
we could have precinct meetings and I think you'd get a better response um by doing >> okay >> by by reaching out in that manner. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, Amy, go ahead. Do you want to respond there? >> Thank you for the question. My thinking
at this point is that I'd like us to get sort of internally through the exercise of thinking about all of the ponds and then put all those together and sort of think about the picture as a whole and then go out to the areas. I'm worried
that if we went out to areas right now, we just are not far along enough in our thinking to be able to be coherent enough for a for a community meeting. But I think by the fall
um uh by late fall we may be coherent enough to on this to you know have a an overall picture of what this might look like but not be we're not committed at that point. We just have a better sense of of how what
this could all look like and what the various options are. Uh so I agree a precinct is actually a good is a good idea because um having a meeting for every pond uh it exhausts me the idea of that but um but maybe precinct is a good idea. I hadn't thought about doing it
that way. Um so there will be future public meetings as well >> like posted public. >> All right. One one quick point then Steve and then we're going to move on. >> That was a great question about the phosphorus. I would request that you go to the Fresh Ponds Committee and tell
them that some crazy guy on this committee said that he'd heard that at least two of the nitrogen removing IAS have relatively small from volume standpoint add-ons
that remove phosphorus. I don't know anything about them, but that it's their job to find out more about that and come tell us about it. >> Okay. Uh M Mr. Rafferty, one brief point and then I want to move on to that next
item. Um Amy the uh you can you back up to where you show the um the values at the Sentinel stations but but either any so um I want to caution when you look at these things you see there's been a bit of a declining trend we have not tried
to factor in the fact that atmospheric deposition has significantly dropped so you know there's still work to be done you know you I'd be careful about taking that line and extending it much further there because it's dipped from atmospheric deposition over time. And
the second one is to your point about um the accessory dwellings. If they're in a nitrogen sensitive area by the board of health's current regulation, they have to put the IIA in. Right. But Steve, my question really was, okay, we we have a
state regulation. We have state mandate to reduce nitrogen and we have a state mandate to increase affordable housing. there are con conflicting state mandates and someone's going to take it to court and I don't know who's going to win.
It has gone through some regulatory debate on that and just with the sandwich road project when the ZBA tried to mandate a low a higher level of nitrogen reduction and the state said uh-uh you you you're making it
uneconomic. So the state housing and the state environmental people need to talk about this. But that is the key word uneconomic. I ran into that on the zoning board all the time when we tried to argue for better wastewater treatment in 40bs.
>> Okay. I think some of these questions too will be coming up again when we do subsequent watersheds. So thanks Amy. Uh I do want to get to that uh number six because that's been postponed for a couple of months. And Amy, you'll be forwarding the new presentation to us.
>> Yes. >> Great. >> The one I just gave. Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Oops. >> Okay. Um, number six is a review of a recommendation to the select board for the town of Falmouth to express the town's concern to the secretary of
energy and environmental affairs on the impact to a quite bay of the secretary's decision on the reserve at Quashnut Valley Country Club. That's a mouthful. And for those who aren't familiar with it,
it's a proposed development in the quashnet watershed in Mashpi of putting in additional homes in a challenged degraded watershed and statements were made by the developer that their project
would have no impact on any distressed areas. Flatout wrong. We know that a very significant portion of the nitrogen into WOI bay comes from the quashnet river and any increase that goes into the quashnet vents will flow to
the woy bay and it's a 25 single family homes each with four bedrooms and they're proposing IAS at 19 milligram per liter which we know is not best available technology and it will most definit definitely impact the river
and more importantly too because the nitrogen will impact greatly quite bay. The phosphorus that it will add will impact the river. um to the lady who just left her point about phosphorus on freshwater, but it's a big problem and
we just want to go on record to the state that hey, you need to do a more thorough review before considering approval of this project and considering what type of restrictions you will put on their wastewater treatment systems.
We've talked about this and tweaked it a number of times. I know Kim Kmart had submitted uh some proposed revisions. Um, back several meetings ago, uh, we had a draft that Steve Rafferty and I had prepared with comments from the
committee and the public and a presentation by the, uh, Trout Unlimited of Cape Cod, who has been doing, you know, 20, 30 years of restoration of the quashnet to bring it into a viable freshwater, the salties, returning to
life and a great population. In fact, a book was just published about the salty and it focuses on the quashnet restoration and it's beautiful volume, but I think the the version that Tom came up with with some wording changes
met most of the concerns that were raised by the public and the committee. Uh I don't know if you can put it up, Tom, or just >> um I don't have an electronic >> Yep. Okay. >> copy. Um, >> so I has the new members of the
committee had a chance to look at this document? >> Yes. And I've got I do have a comment. >> Okay. >> Um, in the second paragraph uh the third line where it says the project is uphill from the question river, the cold water
stream and so forth. Uphill is not really uh >> most land is uphill of most rivers, >> right? Um, I've got a couple I've got two alternate suggestions. >> Okay. Is that was that in the original document that way? Yes, it was.
>> Mike did I did a coin toss between ups slope and uphill. >> I would and ups slope is a more correct >> logic term, but >> not necessarily. >> Okay. But anyway, so I went with uphill because I thought
so I've got two suggestions. One's a short. The short one, the short one is the project is hy hydra either hydraologically or hydraulically upgradient from question river. That's the short one. >> That's correct. How about just upgradient?
>> Well, I like hydraologic. Let me say the other one. Okay. The longer one is starting the sentence with the groundwater beneath the project site discharges to and supports the flow of the quashnet river dot dot dot dot. >> I like that one. Peter, did you get a
chance to see the thing he's talking about? >> Tom, did you catch that? >> Well, yeah. I mean, it could be either way. We could just say groundwater from this development would flow immediately or nearly immediately into the quashant river. I mean, the thing is really on
the banks of the Quashant River, >> right? But I Yeah. Um, >> could say is in the watershed of the Quashant River. Well, no, like what Amy kind of what Amy showed for, you know, the waterersheds we looked at, there's a whole water, you know, this whole
wershed, but it's the purple area, the areas closest to the water body in, you know, the cases here, >> uh, Fither's Fither's Cove, for example. >> And this would be really dark purple. >> Yes. >> Um, because it's directly connected to
the, you know, the quashnet. And um so I just think we need to make you know something that gets into the hydraology hydraulics. >> How about saying all the contaminated groundwater from the project will go directly into the cost river.
>> Well it's not >> well directly sounds almost like sheet flow. >> Yeah it's not directly there but it is going into the groundwater which then goes into the so there's there's two revisions or suggestions. one is in the second paragraph instead of uphill. Um,
your wording was what is >> two choices. One hydraulically upgradient. Again, it's still jargony, but >> yes, >> but it's >> how about the nitrogen-rich groundwater generated by this development would flow. >> Well, it's not just nitrogen that's of concern, right?
>> Well, that's our concern right now. >> Okay. Especially if it's flowing into a freshwater body. So, >> so yeah. >> Okay. So go ahead with your your >> you maybe impacted groundwater beneath the project site
would discharge to direct and forget this word discharge directly to the question river >> in lie of your hydraulically connected >> phrase >> I I I kind of like the hydraulically connected wording because it just it's
too jargony. I'd like to have >> too too jargon. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> She is the Secretary of Environment. She should >> Well, yeah. >> Well, but you know, >> but this is a letter that's coming from the select board, too, right? >> Well, we're we're trying to make go on record with something and you know, it's
not going to be grammatically or scientifically perfect, but it's getting damn close. So, Okay. What's your preferred word? >> Sit down. Sit down and dirty. uh impacted groundwater from beneath the project site will discharge directly to
the quashnet river. >> But somebody didn't like how about all the contaminated groundwater winds up in the quashant river. >> Well, I I like Allan's wording and I think if he'll write that down and hand it to me, I'll >> Okay. >> Flip it in. >> And there was a second
>> you like the sec the second you wanted to make. >> Yeah. >> I had a bunch of changes. I'm just going to give them to you, Tom. >> Well, I know it's wordy. >> It could be a little less wordy, but also more uh substantial. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, but if we don't see those, why are we agonizing over some other ones that we do see? >> There you go. See them? I made copies for everyone. >> But I It's so hard to do this in >> Yes. >> committee. >> Death by committee.
>> Right. Well, that's that's why I did send >> Steve and I had drafted something and then right Tom made some changes, but now we're down back to doing it by committee and that's fine, >> right? Well, I sent my changes to the chair, but the chair is no longer the chair, >> but he did say he got them.
>> So, I don't know. >> What did he do with them? >> I don't know that that's what I never found out. >> All right, let's try to wrap this thing because we're to death. >> What is our time frame? We're going to have a meeting in two weeks >> hopefully. >> I'll go through Ken's stuff. I have a
great respect for his word smithing. >> Absolutely. >> And Allan's going to send me his somewhat altered second paragraph sentence. >> And um I think that we'll I'll plan on presenting it two weeks from today ready
for the kiss of death to be sent to the select board. >> Right. Because you know, who knows when they would even consider it, whether they want more info. >> I hope not. >> There there is no pending deadline at the state level. Now, the developer has
not submitted a definitive >> proposal. They >> Okay. >> So, that's the next step is in their court. the the MASHP board of selectmen probably a month ago now did submit a very very similar letter because the
original document that I worked on >> was basically taking theirs and refining it with some suggestions from a few folks including the gentleman that presented >> at at length from child unlimited right >> so let let's do that uh you know I hate to not vote the damn thing tonight
because it's been beaten around forever >> just mark it tabled for consideration Well, we we have discussed the revisions proposed by Alan. Now, you had two. Did we go over both of them? >> No, that was that was two alternatives for that one location.
>> Oh, okay. There wasn't a second point further in the >> the document. And Ken, you have something that you've given. >> Yes, he's given it to me already. >> Yeah. All right. And I gave you a copy, too. Wonderful. Okay. Tom, if I can ask you to put it together. >> Yeah. in your own initable style and
distribute it to the committee as soon as possible so that people can look at it and any suggestions beyond what was discussed just get to Tom and I I trust his judgment to put it in a format that hopefully we can vote and get to the
select board. Go ahead, Mr. Leighton. >> Um there's also the suggestion from Kim Kart. >> Okay. and he is an attorney and none of us are and I like his proposed replacement the single short paragraph for the last two and I think everybody has a copy of
that >> I agreed with that by the way in my comments you you want to read that Steve >> yeah I won't read the current two paragraphs is that okay I'll just read his replacement >> thing in light of the above we urge the
executive office of energy and environmental affairs affairs and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to deny a wastewater permit to the project unless the developer is able to install a system that results in a net zero contribution of nitrogen and phosphorus
to the quashnet river and quite bay. One option the developer might consider in order to achieve that result is a community cluster system that connects additional homes in the area. I would >> we had that in a version and then consensus was to pull that >> without that. Yeah.
>> And the other thing is they're they're not requesting a groundwater discharge permit. >> They have not requested that and it doesn't sound like they want to. They want to get the development approved with just separate IAS >> which would not require a groundwater
discharge permit. And I respect Kim's input greatly, but I think it just muddies the water with a non-issue at this point. It is not part of their proposal to get a groundwater discharge permit. They're not looking at a plant for 10,000 gallons a day or more.
>> And in his last note, Ken blessed my clothes. I think everybody saw that, too. >> He he the draft he was working from, he hadn't seen what I put in. And then Steve, I think, sent him stuff that had my stuff in it and he said, "No, I
thought Tom's clothes was great." >> And your clothes is the one that you >> that you see now? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All right. >> Okay. We've got 10 minutes left. Anything further on this issue? If not, >> Tom will complete putting this together
hopefully one last time, forward it to the committee for a final review and we will hope vote after hopefully a brief discussion at our next meeting. Maggie, you would like to say something. Go ahead, please. >> This is a pet issue and great concern
for Maggie. Go ahead. Maggie McGau walkway uh precinct 7 I guess and president of citizens for the protection walkway bay. So we are very very happy that the um committee is making recommendations to
the select board to send the letter. I'm wondering how this letter differs materially from the other letter where you had agreed basically that you were going to make final revisions to the other letter and
send it directly to the select board that you would circulate a draft and then you would go ahead and send it to the select board. My concern is simply how long this process is taking. And you
know, it would be great if Felma's select board letter got to the uh to Secretary Ter sooner rather than later. >> I I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, we've had a lot of delays and overrun of
presentations at previous meet. We just never got to it. Yeah, I understand that >> this hopefully and I'm bomb determined this will be next meeting we will vote and get it out. >> Yeah, >> because it's it's and I I plan on this >> items like this that are being carried
over will be first on the agendas not last so that we get them out of the way before other things take up the rest of the meeting. So I I understand and I agree wholeheartedly. Is there no way we can't simply vote to approve whatever
Tom comes up with ahead of time >> and and say pending final review of his draft to the rest of the committee will accept? >> You could do that. >> Yeah. But >> is that a motion? >> But then >> Hold on one at a time. Go ahead, Tom. >> I I can't send it out. I can't forward
it with just my endorsement to the committee. What I can do is send a copy to the board noting that whatever I produce has been endorsed by the committee. >> Right. But
>> well, you send it to Ed, he signs it for the committee based on our approval >> and he sends it out. >> Okay, I'll do that. Do it that way. >> So, Steve, are you making a motion that we do that to Go ahead, state your motion again, please. that Tom, we
approve the idea of Tom incorporating as much of this as he can and we we trust his ability to do that and we expect him to send it to Ed within two or three days and for Ed to send it out to the select board.
>> Well, I I think the I have no problem with the rest of the committee seeing it for one last time >> and then that too >> make sure and then we send it on. Do we need to worry about open meeting law issues? >> Yeah, we've got an issue there. If we have the whole committee, if if this me
and Allan, >> I and Allan, >> I I I think >> you know, we're talking about meeting again in two weeks. Is that correct? Right. >> So, let's do it. Maggie, we're really close. >> Let's just agree that we're going to meet again in two weeks, approve this thing, and and it's going to be first on
the agenda. >> There you go. >> All right. Uh >> in terms of how it varies, it change, it's different. It's just it's just we're just trying to improve it. There's no difference in the primary focus of the letter. >> Didn't you
>> Isn't there another letter that you were preapproving for sending to the select board? >> Right. That's >> this same meeting. >> Right. That was the basis of this letter right here. >> No, I think he's talking about the previous agenda item. What can we do
with that? Right. >> That's a different >> need letter that you preapproved sending to the select board, >> right? >> Not bringing it back for another vote before. >> That's right. >> Question. >> No, that that's not my understanding
that we will vote that next meeting also that we will do a final draft and at that next meeting it will be an agenda item number two. Is is the rest of the committee looking at me funny that I'm No, I think that's
good. >> It's okay. >> I think that's the way to do it. >> It's certainly an okay way to do it, >> but I think that this letter is so close >> Yeah. >> that and even if it's even if the final wording is a little bit different than
somebody would ideally want another member would ideally want, it's close. It's >> good. It's it's it would be good enough to get the point across. Um, say this. Let's let's approve it >> with minor edits. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> And let go with it. >> Okay. >> Steve, are you moving that? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Call the vote. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> None. It's passed. Okay. We got five
minutes to do. Not too much. Um, typically, uh, per the agenda, I would give a synopsis of what's going on in other communities. And go ahead, Alan. >> May I have a quick I have a quick question for Amy because I don't think I have it on my calendar. You're making a
I saw some correspondence. You're making a presentation within a week or two. Um, >> what's what's you know the outfall? What's the date of that? >> Okay, that is I'll I'll feel it. Go ahead, Amy, if you want. So, there's a public information meeting uh next
Wednesday, July 15th, between 6:30 from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at the Falmouth High School auditorium. And that is about Falmouth's ocean outfall project and the draft environmental impact report for that project. So, that's a public
presentation. next Wednesday, July 15th from 6:30 to 8:30 at Felmouth High School auditorium about the outfall project. Thank you for >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um the the only other thing that
the DEIR was submitted on June 30th. The environmental monitor was not published today. They usually go every two weeks, but sometimes it's three. Maybe with the holiday, they're running late. Once it's published in the monitor, that's an official date starting the
clock ticking for public comment, which is typically 30 days from date of publication. Although on some involved projects, they've extended it to 60 days of public comment. So once it's published, which hopefully will be this week, um people can look at it on that
document and comments can start coming in. The outfall environmental impact report is on the town's website under the wastewater division um under department of public works wastewater division outfall.
>> So anybody that wants to really get into the details have at it um the only thing left then uh I won't bring up any other details on other communities. There's not much anyway is approval of minutes of the last meeting
and um any discussion or comments on the minutes as submitted. >> They be approved as written. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Uh discussion none. All those in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Um motion.
>> New members have to abstain. They weren't at the meeting. >> New members have to abstain. They were not at the meeting. >> That's right. the first time you've anything in weeks. >> Okay. >> All right. With two abstensions because
they're new to the committee. Thank you, Stephen. Our parliament parliamentarian. Okay. I will entertain a motion for adjournment. >> So moved. >> We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.