Welcome. >> Today's Wednesday, May 27th. It was this morning. It still is this afternoon. This is the water quality management committee meeting. Um it's 4:30 and the meeting will start.
We begin as usual with a litany of the environmental issues of the world by Edmond. It has been written that if we're doing litinies, um few things going on in the area of interest. Our busy neighbors in
Mashby have um applied for just recently in the environmental monitor for 102,000 gallon per day groundwater discharge for the new satellite plant they're going to build for the Mashbby Wakeby pond. So
this is a new initiative from MASHB to try and restore health to that body of water and um so that's in the public comment period right now. Um their m their new plant which is just
went online for the new sewing areas uh middle of last year. The final design size is 2 and a half million gallon flow at maximum peak. Um it it's only starting first float to the plant was uh
296 houses in phase one. They're now piping for phase 1A which will add another 100 houses. So roughly 400. Phase two is in design stage and that'll add another 1,200. So they're just starting to charge up that plant and
trying to tweak it. They are treating to a level of about four milligrams per liter. uh flow is low, only 51,000 gallons per day. Their goal is to get that plant down to what Felmouth has, which is 3 milligram per liter level.
Um let's see they are in the they just approved design funds I mentioned last meeting for 12 million for the WOI area an additional 1,200 homes that will have a second treatment plant totally
separate uh at designing for 2.1 million gallons per day. So the total design size between the two plants will be 4.6 6 million gallons a day. Um significant size total. The uh second plant for
Wquite is projected to remove 30% of the nitrogen load to Aquite Bay and 80% of the phosphorus load. So again very significant improvement coming down the road for Wait Bay as they proceed with
this. But they they only have design funds right now. So, they'll still have to go through cost estimating and get more funds for final design, permitting, and eventual build. Uh, let's see.
Moving on to Nantucket. >> And where does the effluent go? >> Uh, sand beds. Everything is sand beds >> in >> into the ground. >> Then where does it go? >> Into the groundwater. >> And then where does that go? >> And then back. you know, it's the same issues that we face only they have a lot
more town controlled land available and >> I believe it's the white wo wershed still. >> Yeah. So, still the wo wershed, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. But they'll be denitrifying to a very large extent. So, you know, the same issue we talk about and the reason
we are pursuing the outfall in Falmouth. Um, a little update from Nantucket. They are in a level two drought situation. So they're uh they have implemented their
um water restrictions. No outside automatic irrigation allowed. Um they only received in the month of um April of this year. 09 inches of rain,
less than a tenth. Uh their averages are way down. for the last several years their average is typically around 40 similar to Falmouth but in um 2025 they got half that 20.7 in in 2024 27 in
um and 24 in in 2023. So they're they've got a real problem. >> U Falmouth's rainfall has been hitting pretty much the last couple of years at about the 40 inch a year. Uh so Nantucket has very strict uh procedures
for violation but unfortunately no enforcement whatsoever. You know start with a warning then $250 $500 fines for the third instance and then fourth is shutting off your water.
They've never even started beyond a warning. So they are looking to put in more automated uh meters for water where they can monitor 24/7 and hit major violators that are turning on a lot of irrigation
at night after midnight. But you know enforcement is the key that we see in Falmouth and and whether it's the fertilizer bylaw water restrictions if we have to get to that again. Uh but interesting how the other communities especially Nantucket are are impacted by
just what we see. Um Snug Harbor um near and dear project to our heart. The order of conditions was voted by Concom uh on May 20th and from I was at another meeting so I had to try and watch later
and the sound was terrible but very easy conditions. They would like regular reporting on the results of the project and that the site would be restored to asis condition, particularly new plants that were just put in as a restoration a
couple of years ago. Uh so plan is unless something's changed Kristen that that project we would be looking at construction after Labor Day. Uh Great Pond phase one. Amy's here. Um I'm going to steal maybe some of your
thunder, but uh a meeting was held with property owners um on May 20th and 50 to 60 people by my count um attended. A couple of town officials, myself and Steve were there. Um town manager was
there, Amy and her staff. And um it was well presented as always and well received. There was very little push back. There was none of the anger and uh shouting that happened when little pond sewering meetings were held. So it was good to see people are more
understanding. Uh I think the details that have been forthcoming from the town during the course of the project uh were very well publicized so that uh the only issues that couple of people raised condo owners from Felmouthport were they didn't think that they should have to
pay a full betterment because they were not there all the time and the condos are connecting you know four units in a building are connecting via one pipe. Uh but the problem is you got to treat all that stuff and you're a house whether
you're a condo or not. You are a home. So they are uh that that was a major thing brought up by a couple of condo owners but not contentious. Just trying to understand and point out what they felt was
a a an unfairness. homeowners had the opportunity to ask questions and then also to go one- on-one with town staff, Amy and her assistants and uh an engineer from GHD to look at their specific site and look
at the details of what is proposed and what their concerns might be. Uh site work is ongoing at the Augusta parcel. A lot of equipment moving around in there. And I I noticed just the other day pipe and structures are staged out along the Marav Vista Avenue extension across from
the school. And from my understanding, uh that piece of road will be closed after the school year ends and work will be going on in Marav Vista Avenue Extension, the roadway. Um, last but not least, just hopefully
people are aware there are uh some vacancies coming up on this committee at the end of June and people are welcome to apply via the town manager uh office. Deadline is Friday, June 5th for people
that might be interested in being considered for appointment to the committee. With that, I'm done. >> Thank you, Ed. Um Steve, an update on uh the creation of a fairness committee.
>> Try to keep it very brief. Um in November, the board of health, as most of you know all this, in November, the board of health sent a letter to the select board requesting that the town create a committee to look into fairness of subsidy of IAS versus
sewers because there is a subsidy now for sewers, but not for IAS. In January, this committee sent a letter also to the select board supporting the idea. Um,
uh, we waited a while and then in April, uh, we asked Doug Brown to ask and he said that they expected the, uh, the town manager said they expected to put the committee together in the next two to three weeks. So, three weeks later, we asked again and town manager
said um uh that they would be uh soliciting member issuing the outreach for the committee members on June 4th. And um I um would ask this group perhaps we should suggest just a temporary
working group like the one that was created for liaison with the mass test center on your diversion but larger rather than a formal committee. Uh it might take less work to create and reflects the need for a relatively
prompt action and a finite life. >> Otherwise we wait and see what they do. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, agenda item two, we received correspondence. Actually, it was handed across and then emailed to us. um which was from the green center and
it was a report called advancing ready act in 2023 title 5 regulatory goals debuffs nitrogen research and performance based septic policy acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and the green center has asked to be able to make a presentation
on that but they asked after the agenda went out so it will be on the next agenda um for them to have a few minutes to explain what what they what they did. Um third item on the agenda uh is Amy LOL.
Um there's a little bit of a scribers error on my part um which is it says that this discussion no vote. We've previously taken a vote in support of the whole EIR process, but we will need to um sort of make a
recommendation going forward from tonight to the select board to maintain the schedule for the draft EIR. So, Amy, with that, >> Amy Low, wastewater superintendent, I have a very short presentation today because at
>> I just want to stop. Go ahead. So I believe everybody on this board received a copy of the executive summary of of the draft EI and I hope you've all read it because you know we have heard multiple presentations. >> Yes.
>> Uh of what's in the EI whether it's different aspects of it and the summary is actually I think pretty well put together but Amy go ahead. >> Right. So Steve is Steve is right. You've heard many many presentations about the outfall process and including
two weeks ago I gave a um section by section review of summary of the the EIR document. So my presentation is very short today and yeah what I'm um doing is um looking for any comments on the
executive summary and um support to um submit the DEIR to MEEPA pending select board uh vote to do the same. Um so the EIR is a comprehensive evaluation of the project's
environmental impacts, alternatives and um mitigation measures. It's based on three years of data collection and evaluation which you have been presented individually to you um um at different meetings. hydrodnamic modeling, eelgrass
and benthic surveys, fishery assessment, water quality data collection and in anti-degradation evaluation, aquafer evaluation by USGS and marine borings and conceptual design evaluations. Uh there's been more than that and some of this has been presented in more detail
than others, but um you're familiar with with all of that. Uh this reflects three years also of coordination with regulatory agencies. Uh and it addresses the draft environmental impact report addresses both agency comments and
public comments that were received on the uh environmental notification form. the ENF. Um, and during that review process in late 2025 or fall of 2025, uh, the EIR documents the purpose and
the need for the outfall, its role within the town's watershed management planning uh, process or its relationship with that process and the technical analyses supporting the anticipated permitting decisions. most importantly the uh NPDS or National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit. So the next steps um I've requested to present this on the at the select board meeting on June 15th. I saw on their agenda for um next Monday that that may
get moved to June 8th. Uh so it will be either I'm if if their fif if their meeting for the 15th is moved to the 8th then uh that's when this presentation will be and I'm seeking support today from the water quality management
committee and um June 15th or June 8th from the select board to submit the draft environmental impact report to the state the NEPA's Massachusetts environmental policy act office at the end of June. Um submitting the DEIR
initiates the public comment period for the project and there will be a public meeting in July uh soon after the report is submitted. This is the schedule that you've been looking at uh over time. We are
uh here near the end of the uh I'm sorry here near the end of the draft EIR preparation. Um and um the next step then is after that is the final EIR after which as I mentioned last time we'll be looking for funds in April at
the April 2027 town meeting um to move forward with design um and additional permitting. Uh I did you I got the comment from a couple of people um at the last meeting
that I need to make a more uh user friendly or public friendly figure and I don't have it for this meeting today but I I got the message that we need a figure between these two. You know we have one that just shows a star where the outfall is going to be and another that has too much information on it. So,
we're preparing another figure that uh has um is has an intermediate amount of information on it that's better for public presentations. Um so then I just wanted to take time to get comments if you have them on the executive summary and then to discuss
and hear um your support for submitt of the DEI. Um Ken any >> I don't have anything I think very well done detailed concise and to the point and we've we've heard so many details that is going the last
year or two so time to move forward. Okay. >> Ed said it all. >> Steve, John, Tom, >> um, just a will you be able to stay after the meeting? Sure. For minutes. I got a whole bunch of little nitpicky that have
>> been retained by my half millimeter civ, >> but um, a key thing in in the second first sentence in the in the second paragraph, >> it says the nitrogen sensitive areas that is coastal ponds with TMDLs. >> Yeah. But it's not the ponds that are
the NSAs the waterhed. So I rewrote that to say nitrogen sensitive areas that is the watersheds of coastal ponds with TM >> um DL. And then under project description the design discharge capacity of 3
million gallons per day. Is it going to be something that can be added on to later? Are these like modular diffuser units? >> So no, the three mill three million gallons per day is the future design average flow.
>> It is okay. >> Right now our discharge from the main plant averages like 500,000 gallons a day, >> right? Um so that's a future future average flow. >> I wasn't sure. I just thought I remembered something bigger. But anyway, I'll go over these little minor. So it
may be that just to clarify on that we haven't done the design on the outfield yet but but it may be that for for the that our >> we will have the pipe set up for the diffusers but will not install all of the diffusers at the end but but the the
outfall will be >> um construct designed and constructed to accommodate >> future average flow and maybe there are some of those diffusers that get added when the flow steps up. I I don't know that design detail yet. >> Okay. Well, we'll beat up these other little things in a few minutes.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Jonath Jonathan. >> No, looks good. >> Uh Amy, the entire draft EIR >> as well as the executive summary. What is your schedule for posting that online for people that want to see it? So the the the plan is to have the public com
comment period start as it does with the with the MEPA review process once it is in the environmental monitor. So um the I will like like I've done with the water quality management committee I'll
provide a the executive summary and a link to the document to the select board. But the public comment period um should be within the um the MEEPA the public comments can be provided within the MEPA comment review process uh
period which is uh 30 days after it's um submitted. So it'll be in the environmental monitor after it's after we submit it. So that will be if you're looking for time frame it would be like uh July. >> I'm going to rephrase this. Yeah. When we actually file the draft EIR,
>> it will be on the town's website. >> Available on the town's website. >> Yep. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. >> On the town's website >> under the wastewater DPW wastewater division. >> So, I'm I'm looking for um a a motion. Don't anybody make the
motion yet? I'm looking for a motion to recommend that the board of selectmen submit the draft EIR. And John Waterbury has put hours and hours convincing people that this is something that we need to do. So John, if you feel comfortable making the
motion, I would love you to make the motion. >> Um, I'll recommend that the board submit to the selectman our approval of the DIIR and that they should submit it to the state. >> Thank you so much.
>> Okay. All right. And now it's time for discussion. Is there anybody in the audience that cares to participate here? It's a remarkably silent crowd. It's kind of scary for a change. All those Go ahead, John. Tom,
>> can I suggest that we use the term endorse instead of approve? >> I I I think we recommend I think we should be recommending to the board of selectment that they submit the the the draft EIR. Okay. And I think John's working. >> Oh, we recommend it that they submit it.
>> They submit it. Not We don't submit it. They submit it. >> Look in the audience. >> You have to walk up to the microphone and speak because we're on live TV broadcast around the world to planets unknown. >> Thank you, Steve. Uh Alan Robinson,
Falmouth. Uh I suggest a very tiny little change to to that recommendation. Um, and that you referred to the select board as opposed to the select men. >> I thought I said select board. I I apologize. >> Oh, that's okay.
>> Years years of years of of of training is hard to un undo. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Thank you. Well done, Amy. >> Thank you very much for your support all throughout this
>> important questions. You've given us a lot of information at every stage of the project and have done a great job I think with your you and your consultants of dealing with the state and making sure that my shortand I like to say in certain
please in certain locations I like to say an outfall is good and everything we've studied says it's not going to hurt anything. So >> okay that's it. >> Thank you. Okay. Item five. I might turn this over to
you, Ed. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. uh and and Maggie, I guess. But um just to frame this, the the agenda item is a review of a recommendation to the select board for the town of Felmouth to express the town's concern to the
secretary of environmental and environmental affairs on the impact to Wo wo wo bay of the secretary's decision on the reserve at Quashion Valley Country Club. And uh a little quick background here is
quite bay is primarily um impacted by MASHP and found with a very small piece of sandwich and uh a number of years ago a development um called the reserve at the Washington
Valley Country Club went through some steps. It recently got a secretary review which did not really hold the line on not putting any more nitrogen into um the portions of things. And so I know the MASHP
selectman has recently put together a letter um back to the secretary identifying their concerns. I think because we have a joint agreement with NASA on this that we also need to uh
work hand inand with NASH expressing our concerns. I I do have the um uh your letter is is available um >> okay >> up there and we want to put it up so you can look at it. Um and Maggie you you
you're welcome to come up here and add add anything to it. And the gentleman to your right is is he from Trout Unlimited? Yes. >> Thank you. And your name, sir? >> My name is Peter Schilling. >> Nice to meet you, Peter. Thank you for coming. >> Make some comment. >> Your It's yours.
>> Okay. Um, just as some background on this, as Steve mentioned, this is an old project that's been resurrected and they're looking to expand development in the uh watershed of the Quashnet River,
which feeds into Wukwait Bay. Um, the secretary recently issued an opinion that all they need to do is a single EIR, meaning there will be no draft submitted for a public comment period and then a final EIR that
would reflect those comments and whatever needed information entities that commented might require. So, as Amy just mentioned in her presentation, what we are going forward with as a town is a draft EIR. That's a first
public document that opens a public comment period of 30 days after date of publication in the environmental monitor. Um, Secretary Ter has said they only have to go right to the final EI. They don't
have to do a draft. So, there's a a whole step missing for public and and various agencies and entities to have some input on it. Um, again, as Steve mentioned, the MASHBY Select Board last week approved a letter that they sent to
the secretary expressing their strong concern about this project and things that were overlooked in the proposal primarily that they said there will be no impact on coastal waters and that's just totally false. uh Trout Unlimited,
whose representative is here and I believe will speak to this, issued their I think it was 93page uh letter and document of concern. Tremendous amount of great information and I'm not going to steal his thunder
because uh they they just did a terrific job of it. So based on their letter and the documents submitted by the MASHP select board, um Steve had started working a draft for a proposed letter
from this committee. We're asking our select board to also send a letter of concern to the secretary. I tweaked it with input uh that I received from Ashby's letter and also from Trout Unlimited. So with that as introductory
and again you know we have a big commitment to participate in cleaning up Bay as a town it's part in Felmouth part in Mashby and a little bit of feed for Sandwich. So
any additional nitrogen going in, we're going to be responsible for doing some remediation in addition to the reme remediation we need to do now for the nitrogen that is already existing. So it's a new development >> and um with that I'm going to say public
comment I think is appropriate. The letter is up there but I think >> I'm actually going to take a minute if you don't mind. >> I just >> just so uh and um we can you scroll >> thank you. I know you don't work for us anymore, but
um this is we are writing to convey the town of Falmouth select boards this is what we're going to pass to the select board to ask them to submit. We are writing to convey the town of Falmouth select board's profound concerns regarding the negative environmental
impact of the proposed reserve at Quashionate Valley Country Club. The project the project filing makes no mention of the cumulative adverse impacts to a quite bay and inaccurately states that the project is not expected to impact coastal water quality. The
fact is that the quashnet river flow contributes over 25% of the nitrogen into wo bay which is severely degraded. Adding nitrogen to the quashionate wershed will impact wo bay. A 2020 report from the executive office of
energy and environmental affairs illustrates the severity of the problem in the quite bay watershed. Quote, "At present, the flooding waters from a quite bay are sufficiently nitrogen-rich that even modest nitrogen loads from the wersheds to these estuaries exceeds
nitrogen targets. The project proposes 25 fourbedroom homes with individual IIA systems in the woy wershed each releasing up to 19 milligrams per liter each of nitrogen and providing no
phosphorus reduction. The project is upland from the quashin river a cold water stream which flows directly into a kite bay. The McCoy Bay wershed is shared by the towns of Mashby, Falmouth, and Sandwich who have a binding intermunicipal agreement for
shared responsibility for water restoration. The project as submitted has significant cumulative adverse environmental impacts. The Quadrinet River remains a fragile and deeply impaired ecosystem.
A 2020 report issued by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, dear Mrs. Secretary, that's your office, indicated that to meet TMDLs, nitrogen levels would have to be reduced by 46.1%
in the Quashion River groundwater and 34.3% in the Quashion River freshwater. For more than five decades, Trout Unlimited and partner organizations have worked to restore the Quashtinate River to a functioning cold water fishery.
Over 25 million and 60,000 hours have been invested in the restoration in the last 50 years. The construction of 25 four bedroomedroom homes with IIA systems will negatively impact the water quality and years of restoration work in this
important cold water stream. Increased nutrient loading, altered recharge patterns, and storm water discharger and storm water discharge represent clear risks to the thermal and hydraological environment supporting the
cold water fishery and are inconsistent with Meepa's requirement to avoid, minimize, and mitigate damage to rare or high value natural resources. Balmouth and Mash taxpayers have already committed hundreds of millions of
dollars for centralized wastewater systems and other projects to restore water quality. >> Don't need that. >> The proposed project is contrary to these restoration efforts. The project's reliance on individual IIA septic systems in a nitrogen sensitive
area upland from a cold water stream that flows directly into a severely impaired bay is inconsistent with the mass DB mandates MEP standards and the 2020 report from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs. We request We request that Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs apply the strictest regulatory standards available and require a community cluster system that reduces nitrogen phosphorus to levels like those
achieved by centralized wastewater systems should be required. The cluster system should include capacity to allow connection of additional homes in the area so that total nitrogen added to the wershed is zero.
sincerely town of selected. Okay. Um I will start at the opposite end. >> So So my main question is if these were homes that were being built in Falmouth in in in an NSA watershed but not on a
sewer system, I thought our latest um board of health regulations would require them to have um you know best available nitrogen reducing technology, a 10 milligram per liter IIA system. So, it seems like we're doing something
different with this letter. And I guess I'm not sure I understand what the difference is, why we're calling upon this centralized cluster system as opposed to a higher quality um you know, IIA system. What what's different here? I'm not arguing with it. I'm just I
don't understand it. Okay. >> I think when Maggie might get up to the >> So I think there's land avail you know it's so I'm going to defer momentarily to Brick Kilm Road. There's a development on Brickill Road in which
there's 36 homes and they go to two cluster systems because it makes the, you know, on-site systems more reliable and effective. And so rather than having a bunch of individual systems with variabilities that we heard from George Hoffelder, the folks in MASHB have have
advocated for the cluster system. So um that that's why we that's why it's included in this letter, John. So is there some um minimum number of houses that are closely spaced where this cluster system would be recommended over an IIA system? I'm just trying to
understand how the board of health regulations in in Falmouth would be impacted by this sort of recommendation. >> It's a it's a great question. I what I will tell you is that the variability from one from household to household of what they discharge out the to the
extent that you can gather 10 15 whatever of them into one waste stream it mitigates people doing different things in their property and it makes this overall system run more effectively. Um but Steve
>> No, John John's John's on the on the John's there. Go ahead. Oh, I'm I'm I just feel from a legal perspective, you know, we have a a board of health regulation and yet we're recommending something very different and I don't see with these potential
7,000 IA systems. Are people going to be allowed to say that we're closely spaced homes, we want to do something different than the IIA and the board of health would then say, "Sure, that's fine." >> From from this is me speaking as a citizen. Um, but if a neighborhood who
was told they had to put IAS in came to the board of health and said, "We'd like to make a cluster system." I I think the board of health would agree with it. They'd have to set up an association like they did for the Brickill Road people. >> Where would it go? >> Huh?
>> I mean, this is like a community development, right? This is >> if I may. >> Yes, please. >> I'm going to try. Maggie McGaw from Wau and Citizens for the Protection Wa Bay.
I think the distinction is the location of this project. It's not this is not just any 25 houses anywhere. This is 25 houses cited on a bluff immediately above the quashnet river which is a cold
water fishery. And Peter Schilling of Trout Unlimited is going to speak to the specific regulations that should govern what happens to cold water fishery habitat. And then this quashnet river
valley flows down. I mean the quashnet river itself uh is an ACE. The municus river that the quashnet becomes is an ACEC. and Walkway Bay is an ACCE and there are supposed to be the strict and
and they're all outstanding resource waters as well. There are supposed to be very strict standards that apply. So that I'm very happy with the changes to the letter. Uh I saw an earlier draft of it and I think that it's not sufficient
to suggest that the developers could offset the nitrogen load someplace else in the watershed because you're talking about the ruination of this habitat that has been restored over 20 over 50 years.
I mean, the the the wild searun brook trout has been brought back to 400% of its numbers prior to the restoration efforts. And Peter will talk about this that this is springfed. And so it's a
it's a it's a very particular location over which stricter standards should apply than simply you know your house in a nitrogen sensitive area of Falmouth uh where an IIA system would be the
appropriate thing to do. >> Can I respond to So Jonathan I I went back to reread this little line. It says um the levels like those achieved by a centralized wastewater system should be required. We
might consider um editing that a little bit to like you know the lowest levels should be required. I don't know we that we need to recommend the centralized system at this time. Okay. Tom, you're next. >> Um I I think the letter overall is is
fantastic. I've got my usual little stylistic things that can be tucked in here and there, but um the third paragraph um it says the quashant river remains a fragile and deeply impaired ecosystem.
And then four or five lines later, it says it's been restored by trout unlimited to a functioning cold water fishery. So, how impaired is it? I want to be careful with our wording here. I mean, obviously, it's a delicate system
and Peter can pro Mr. Schilling can probably address it. >> I'm calling Peter up to >> Oh, call call him up now because there are two things in the same paragraph that seem to say very different things. >> That's a good point. >> So, I want to first of all, Peter Schilling from the Cape Cod chapter of
Trout Unlimited, I want to thank you very much for taking up this issue and taking the time to consider this. Um, I'm very thankful for that. Um, so I'm going to I'm going to go right to your question.
The the some of this is terms of art that are used in dealing with watersheds and the when they say that the quashnet is an impaired river, it's the greatest single
source of nitrogen into a quite bay. It provides I think it's 25% of the load of nitrogen and that has been increasing as development has increased throughout the watershed particularly in Mashbby. Nitrogen is not the thing. Nitrogen
causes problems downstream when it gets into the salt ponds. Like if if we were going to do a field trip right now, I would take you to the Municus and let you look at the bridge over what's the the name of the road? of meadow >> meadow neck bridge. And look at the
rafts of algae that are flowing in and out with the tide right now. Five years ago that started uh the last week in April. That algae was
there in rafts and it would just come back and forth. And what happens with that algae is after it keeps going swishes back and forth it goes out into Woy Bay and then it drops into the Municus and Woy Bay and goes to the bottom and starts eliminating oxygen
from the system. It's utrification year after year after year. That's what's responsible for the destruction of the eel grass in the system. The eel grass is the habitat. It's the nursery ground for everything. So the primary impact of the nitrogen isn't necessarily in the
stream where the trout are. Phosphorus in the system is what will kill the trout. That comes from storm runoff mostly or fertilizers. There's some of that in the system, but it's not to the point where it's killing the trout. And
the reason why the whole reason why we have been su I mean we've been successful a lot of you may know Fran Smith. Um, Fran has been the point of the spear on this restoration project and it's gone on for 50 years. Started in 1976
and we've planted just I I won't go through the whole litany of it, but just an example. We've planted 4,000 trees. We turned a channelized cranberry bog into a stream that had sineuosity and now has tree cover. Some of the
trees that we planted 20 years ago are now 30 feet tall to create shade on the river. But the whole thing that drives the trout being and and we had last year we have pictures, we have videos that we can share with you of spawning seun brook trout, you know, somebody Fran
said spent a week over an area that he knew was spawning ter territory and set up videos to take pictures of these fish. So it's happening. It's a self- sustaining population. And over the time that we've been working on the river, the number of trout have gone from one
fish per 100 ft to 40 fish per 100 ft. And the reason this happens is because there's cold groundwater that comes into that river. If you've walked along the river, that trail along the river, you see, if you look down in the river, there's a valley. It's a discerned
valley. If you put on a pair of waiters and you'd walk the river, you'd see that that valley wall is lined with springs. The problem with this, there's two problems with this development. The first is the the the physical location. They are on a bluff in the headlands and
that bluff is the was one of the primary sources of cold water that feeds the quashnet. The quashnet river is connected to John's pond. But John's pond is not the source of the quashnet. The source of the quashnet is the groundwater and the springs that
surround the upland valley of the quashnet. Once they disturb that, it's our it's our belief that once that development happens and they disturb that upland by digging the ground, putting in foundations, doing whatever, they're
going to they're going to disturb the matrix of springs that has been in that hillside for thousands of years and that's kept the quashnet cold. So that's problem number one. And then problem number two is the conundrum of the nitrogen you have.
You have and and the the so we learned about this project in January that because of the the the citizens group. There was a site visit that happened that was remote. They did it by
YouTube. And I I asked the analyst at the time, I said, "Why are we doing a remote site visit?" And she said, "Well, I have the discretion as to whether or not we could do it, you know, on-site or remote." I went and I looked at the regulations. I found no discre there's
no discretion that's listed in the regulations. If we had been able to take people on site and physically show them what I'm talking about, it would have given a completely different complexion to what you know what it is. That being said, the Meepa decision that did come
out, which we felt was flawed, said two things that are important. One, that this bluff where they're going to build is a recharge area for the Quashnet River. So that that confirms what I'm telling you here today. The second thing is that the housing project is going to
be a source of new nitrogen into the into the system. They started out saying we're just going to have regular septic systems and then revised their filing after this site visit and said we're going to have updated uh bells and whistles. But the problem with that is
you're adding nitrogen into a system where the regulations D regulations as we understand it is that if you have an AC if you have ACEC's and and water and areas of this high quality water it's it's there's no new nitrogen
allowed period not how much can there be it's none and so the you know Fmouth The reason we came to Felmouth is because part of because the Municus is in Felmouth and part of the
Wuite Bay is in Felmouth, but also part of the Quashnet River itself is in Felmouth. the F it's our position and I don't think that this is something that's been done in this town that the
the con Falmouth has the ability to regulate the impact on the quashnet for the impact on cold water fisheries resources and they're defined
in the regulations under 321 CMR5 it doesn't say it's not that so it's fish and wildlife that comes in and says this is a cold water fisheries resource period. That's all they do. They don't then regulate it and they don't say
exactly who regulates but in the regulations it cites to agencies, state agencies and other agencies which opens the door for the concom to come in and have that power to do it. and the in I looked at the the
Falmouth uh wetlands regulations today and it's clear that Falmouth wetlands regulations give the town the ability to regulate fisheries and a whole host of other impacts on on water. So it's on on water
resources. So the the the town concom has the ability to you know to regulate the impact that this project is having on the quashnet river itself and on the downstream portion of the of the you
know into the into the ACEC's. So it's you know it's it's our position that this we this project shouldn't be built. It's just a no-go. And it's not how much nitrogen should be allowed. It's just that it shouldn't be built. This is the
wrong place. And you run the risk of destroying this resource. And nobody has required there to be an analysis of the impact on the river for cold water fisheries resources. And we think that's a mistake that Secretary Ter needs to address. But
it's something that the town of that of Falmouth can do and the town of Mashby can do. And we're working our way into into that arena. But the you know the the dilemma is nitrogen comes from MASHP into Fmouth. You say that there's an
agreement in place but so right now both towns don't have wershed agreements in place with the state. They're working on that with the septic f with the title 5 upgrades. The nitrogen that would be coming from this project is not something that's planned or known about
and it's going to be coming into the system for how many years before somebody does something about it. The impact is going to be right away. The re the remediation of it may be how many years down the line? So it's, you know, I think that this is a great letter. The
thing that my suggestion would be is don't get in the business of telling Mashby or telling the developers what they need to do is like just take that out. Leave it out. >> So So Peter, I I'm going to try to bring you back. I believe Tom's question was
very very specific. >> Okay. >> In in that we have a sentence that says the cautionary river remains a fragile and deeply impaired ecosystem. And then couple sentencer I can't didn't count sentences. It might be the next sentence, might be two sentences later. It says
for more than five decades, trout trout unlimited partner organ have worked to restore the caution river to a functioning global efficiency. So Tom's question, I think Tom was, is it restored or is it still impaired? >> It's it's impaired and it's restored.
You're looking at it through two different lenses. It's it's this river is going to keep be at a certain point if it if the if you >> I think the answer is really I think the answer is we don't want to we don't want to go backwards >> right now not the past not the future is
it impaired or is it restored >> it's restored for seun brook trout and it's still an impaired river in terms of the amount of nitrogen that's in the system >> okay can so it's it's not a it's not >> there's a simple let >> Tom let's
suggest that the first sentence say the quashtant river remains a fragile and substantially nitrogenimpaired ecosystem and I had already put high quality in in front of functioning in the second sentence
I think that's a good right because high quality should be in there because um because it is high quality so I think if we separate the two aspects of the water quality there one is it's nitrogen
impaired at the same time it's ice cold drought are reproducing there and it's a high and it's functioning it's a high quality functioning system so that if if you put those in I think my answer my question >> I want to be the quashion river remains a fragile and substantially nitrogen
impaired ecosystem >> nitrogen hyphen impaired >> hyphen >> hyphen put that hyphen in there >> all right hyphen >> I got to put Tom's hyphen in okay all right >> as an as an engineer I'm not sure what a hyphen does, but okay, I'll do it. >> Right. >> And then for more than five decades,
yada yada yada, to restore the Quashion River to a high quality cold water fishery. >> Yeah. High high hyphen quality or >> another. >> Now that I got my chance, >> another another hyphen. Oh, you're killing me now. >> What you could say is that it's a self-
sustaining population of wild brook trout. Wild searun brook trout. >> All right. So I don't if there's any other questions I don't want to take >> stay there because you know you look great there you're on TV. >> Yeah >> John >> u I just to clarify John's concern. I
believe the Felmouth Board of Health already has a regulation that says in new developments of five or more dwellings there shall be a cluster system. >> Oh, do they have that at this point? >> That's that's a regulation we did years
ago. Yeah, I think I think he's >> Okay, Steve, you've been anxious. >> Yeah. >> Um I'm not against this. I think it's a great letter to send. I don't care about the details. Um but Ed, I have a slightly broader version of what John
was bringing up. I think Ed implied that MASH Peace Select Board is on our side on this. >> They have already submitted a letter very similar to this. So I exerted part of their latter. the draft letter that Steve had and information from Trout Unlimited.
>> And there's an my the center of my question is the relationship between Falmouth and MASHP and this intermunicipal agreement which I probably read once but I don't remember the details. And is is this a 40B?
>> No. >> No. >> So why can't Ma if MASHP wants to live up to their side of the agreement? If they don't want to live up to it, let's definitely talk about that. If they do want to live up to it, why can't they just say no?
>> Can I clarify? >> I'm going to give this a try for Steve. So, this development tripped over some boundaries. I'm not sure which boundaries they tripped over, but it required that it winds up going down this
process with the state because of the scale of the project. No, I'm saying why can't MASHP be more strict than the state? >> Even if the state says go ahead, no mine could be more. >> Why can't MASHP say no, you can't do that? >> I I I'm going to defer because I don't
understand all the things between how the state does things and whether they supersede MASH. But the fact is there's a document out there that is from the Executive Office of Energy Environmental Affairs that says, "Yeah, 25 homes, 19 sounds good to us." And so
MASH select board is saying to the secretary, we think it needs to be more strict and I think we as a group should say because of the way it feeds into what KO found with because we share this watershed also agrees it should be more
strict. And so I just in summary I I think you should make all these good arguments but somebody should look into what why are what are the limitations on what MASHP can do on its own? Can I can I provide some context?
>> Yes. >> So the first question is what does it does this agreement specifically say how what how the two towns are going to allocate removal of nitrogen under a situation like this? It it's percentage by by kilograms,
>> percentage by weight. >> It's it's it's there's there's specific language that says Thalmouth is responsible for so many kilograms of nitrogen and Falmouth will reduce that and MASHB is responsible for so many kilograms of nitrogen. They will reduce that. The the the issue I think here is
whether or not MASHB's number did or did not include the reserve. >> It doesn't together. >> It doesn't. >> I don't believe it did. >> It does not. So So let me give you was trying to get my attention. Am I good? >> No. >> Am I close? >> Y. >> Okay. So, let me give you some background, more background on this
project. So the developers, Lava, the Lava companies, who were the people that own the golf course or related entities came to Meepa in either October or December
um and put something on the environmental register about, you know, a MEEP review for this parcel, for the parcel that we're talking about on this bluff that overlooks the the quashnet. and they said that they're doing the
development under the authority of a permit that was issued by the zone by the by the planning board in 1973. >> Wow. Now, they're not they did not say in the MEEPA process that they owned the land in 1973,
and our research indicates that it was another entity that owned that land, but that when they purchased the land in either 91 or or 81 or 82, they took it with that permit. So the they went to
Meepa because in order to do this development, they knew that their from their consultants, they had fragile, they had box turtle habitat that was a an endangered species and they needed a permit from mass wildlife because of this and because there was an
environmental justice community within a mile of the of the project. So they went to Meepa and they wanted review for these things and that started the ball off. The Meepa process does not give them the right to develop the land.
That's the town of Mashp, which you know about the the As far as I know the as far as I know right now there has been no decision made by the town of Mashby
about whether they can go forward with this development or not. And I I have to do a little more research on that. But there hasn't been so it hasn't got there hasn't been any kind of finalized blessing of this project to you know start digging but that's going to be a
trip to the town hall tomorrow. I I submit that that's crucially important not just for your project but for Falmouth's dealing with MASHP on the whole issue >> and and you you were getting close to the point that at one level I suppose if
MASHP didn't care about this particular river and totally disliked you and Maggie that they would say pour the nitrogen and the phosphorus in there we'll take it out somewhere else to keep the balance in quite bay but then
Falmouth should come back and say that that's not a good faith way to solve the equation. >> Well, I think I think >> I also think strongly suggest that you talk to the found. >> It's on the list that I'm I'm going to
go there after I talk to you. Yep. >> No, I I and I that I think that the the key one of the key distinctions is that this letter is going to Secretary Ter and the Meepa process. It's not necessarily a comment on
the, you know, what's going on with MASHP and whether or not they can develop the land or not because it's in front of MeEPA right now. What we don't want to see, the reason why we jumped, we we we went through we sat through this uh site
visit. We they came out with an initial decision from the review. We thought the review was highly flawed and put together a very detailed package as to a response as to why we thought it was flawed. We did that because if anything happened
down the line, we did not want anybody to think that we sat on our hands and did not react as soon as possible to say that this resource, this development is going to potentially destroy one of the best resources left in this McCoy Valley
or the quite the valley water in the watershed for McCoy Bay. And so that's why we filed that appeal. We haven't heard back from the secretary. We sent a follow-up letter last week and we've asked for people to support our position before
before Meepa. There's more work to be done with the town of Mashby and find out where this stands. But the the the fact that the select board is saying we don't think, you know, we we that they wrote such a strong letter expresses their concern over the resource
and it's to be continued. So, it's a it's kind of a work in progress. It's not >> I like to keep things moving. I'm going to let Ed who has not had a chance to ask questions yet. >> The um well, I want to say a couple of things. One is why a cluster system
versus a good IA. As John Waterberry said, you know, Felmouth does require cluster systems. There are a number of cluster systems in 40B developments and others in the town of Felmouth. The cluster system gives
you much better performance in the order of magnitude of three to five parts per million similar to a centralized wastewater plant like we have in West Felmouth. And Felmouth attempted to do some regulation of uh the 40B on
Sandwich Road, the Easterly I think they're calling it, and was denied by the housing bureau. the orders of conditions that the ZBA try to uh put on the development were overturned.
So Felmouth is going to get incremental nitrogen into the uh Kunameset River watershed from the easterly if and when it's ever built. That's another question for another night. But Felmouth tried and failed. Here is
another development smaller in scale but in a very significant ecosystem that is of concern and that's what the letter says. We have serious concerns. The Meepa process has missed factual information
about the impairment that this has and that the quite bay will be impacted by additional nitrogen because the developer purely states there'll be no impact on coastal waters. Well, guess what? There will be. So,
Trout Unlimited, the town of Mashby, and hopefully the town of Falmouth select board was is saying, "Whoa, you've got a flawed process. You're missing facts. You need to consider this when you do the review." It started with, if I remember right, a notice of intent last
fall that triggered the review. And this secretary ruled I think in March or February that ah you just go one step just do that single EIR skip the the next step which is normally a draft but
there's very sound reason and rationale for proposing a cluster system. A 10 milligram per liter of better IIA would be better than a title five but not anywhere near as good as a cluster
system. And as stated in the letter draft that I submitted, size it so you could hook up some of those other houses that are in the watershed so that the net impact to the
watershed is zero. And really, if you got ambitious, you could make it net reduction in nitrogen by tying more of the homes in that immediate vicinity in the greater uh country club development area to this system and thereby reduce
the nitrogen. You shoot for the moon and hope you get close. That would be ideal where it will go. But I think it's important to go on record as saying there's a problem here with the process. hear our concern and stay tuned. When the EIR is submitted, there will be the
opportunity for 30 days of public comment. But this is kind of shooting something out there that hopefully the secretary will consider and the developer and say, you know, maybe we could be good guys here. That's my point. And, you know, I think the the
work that Peter detailed very passionately is absolutely incredible. I at least once a week I walk along the quashnet on the trails. I've stood at the bridge over the quashnet um about a mile mile and a half up from the parking
area on Martin Road and saw a school of trout, probably a dozen of them. It was a beautiful sunny day in the crystal clear water and there they are swimming around and it was like, "Wow, God is great. Nature is wonderful." It's a beautiful thing. It's a great place for
hiking. It can be challenging if you go on the uh east side of the river. It's a precious resource and thousands and thousands of hours over the past 50 years and $25 million of money raised across the country by trout
>> service. Let's say >> that land around the quashnet that 400 acre wildlife management area came because in in 1984 85 we heard that there was going to be 300 condos put on the
the Mashp bank and Trout Unlimited went out France Smith and um Matt Patrick who's no longer with us and a couple of other people you probably know and went to the legislature and said we need money we want We want to keep this as open space. And they got $10 million
to keep it as open space. So that parcel that I mean do people love that that stretch. There's the ospreys love it, the great blue heron love it, the you know the the uh the sea otter. Fran was telling me that this winter because the
snow was so thick everywhere, the the otter didn't have access to the ponds where they have food. So they were concentrating on going to the rivers. He could see the otter tracks where they were going to the rivers to feed on the trout. >> But that's nature. I mean >> it's a natural treasure that is worth it
to Ken. >> Throw it to Ken. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So just one clarification that I think Tom raises a good point, but the quashnet is an estuary. There's a freshwater portion. Nitrogen enters that portion. the N it's
not that biology there is not impaired by the nitrogen because it's a phosphorus limited system. Once that nitrogen gets >> to the municus the whatever you want to call it uh the salt water portion that's when the impacts begin. >> That's where it
>> and so I just think you want to in your phrasing somehow you need to make that distinction maybe clear because I I think he had a good point that it sounds contradictory the way it's written now. >> Okay. Um, good point.
>> Regarding the overall strategy here, it's, you know, it sounds to me like this may be headed to court eventually if the developers don't get their way. And so clearly, MASHP and all of the
towns need to have the horsepower of the state behind them as well. And that's an important reason why if you could get some more stringent requirements from the state, it would give you a little extra support if you ended up, you know,
in a litigation situation. >> When when you step back from this just for a second or I mean I've spent a lot of time buried in paper, but that's you know I'm not unfamiliar to that. But when you step back from this, one of the one of the things that is driving,
aside from wanting to keep the quashnet the way it is, we want the state to apply its regulations the way they're written. I mean, they're they're they're coming to the town. They they came to the Cape and they said, "All right,
we're going to people are going to have to spend $30 to $50,000 to put in upgraded septics because you've all you bad people have degraded the the esttoaries and the water quality. The state has a laundry list of regulations
on the books and they're not enforc they're not using them." >> Yeah. You know, I mean, I I talked to the the director of the Mass Watershed Coalition and he said D is so badly understaffed that they have the ability to work on the permits, but they don't have any money for enforcement.
So, we want to go to Secretary Temper and say, "Listen, all these people operate, you have an umbrella portfolio and you have all these entities that have different regulatory responsibilities. Let them do their jobs." It's like don't put it back on the citizens and make them pay for it or the
towns and make them pay for it. You dig in and do what you're supposed to do, too. So, that's part of what's driving the, you know, our going and and pushing hard on this MEPA process. >> There there are sometimes conflicting priorities and and the Easterly project
which was brought up here which is affordable h includes affordable housing. It's 40B. The reason there was overturned is because this, you know, on the one hand the state has all these environmental pri priorities, but on the other hand,
it has this affordable housing party. At the moment, >> there isn't enough uh >> affordable housing. Well, there isn't the regulatory power seems to fall to to the in favor of the affordable housing
and you know this if the this is something that I think a number of us have been saying for a while is if they really believe we need to do something on the Cape to preserve water quality they need to create some uh guard rails at the level of the state because the
municipalities cannot don't have the power to say no >> and that and I I believe that the municipalities do have the authority to >> not against 40b. >> They have >> this is not a 40B. So you're >> if if it was a 40 my question for the
for the Kunames and I wasn't paying attention to that but did the review deal with the impact of that project on a cold water fisheries resource the Kunameset which also has wild trout. answer. As far as I understand it, no. >> I'm going to I'm going to sort of control this conversation because we
we're into the Kunamesid and we're not in not >> the So, >> thank you. >> Audience members that have have an opinion and I Maggie, if you want to go first because you you're good. I'm only not skipping over you, but Maggie helped
to push this. Okay. Hilda >> Hilda Manga green center what I heard is that this project should not happen at all because it has the potential of destroying the cold water resource regardless of nitrogen regardless of
phosphorus that it should not happen period that's my understanding so I think that's what should be not be in the letter somehow I I'm not writing the letter, but >> okay. Thank you. Anybody else care to comment on this issue?
All right. So, we have a draft letter. A couple of edits have been made to it. Um we have two choices. We can either decide that the the edits that have been suggested get incorporated and we pass
it forward to the >> I I have other small clarifying stylistic but not substantial. >> Let's do this. Let's do this. I let's let's roll this over to the next meeting. >> Oh, okay. >> I'll I'll I'll update with a couple of
things I've got marked up here. run it through you, Tom, and we'll get a vote at the next meeting to send it to the selector. >> Are there any timing disadvantages of waiting that long? >> No, >> I don't think so. Your next meeting, >> you'd rather have a perfect letter in
two weeks than a pretty darn good one. Now, >> my preference would be that, you know, this go out with minus the the town trying to give the developers suggestions on how to deal with it. You should just leave that out. It's not
It's not the town's job to figure it's not to figure that out. >> Yeah. Yeah. But you don't mind if it's delayed two weeks. >> But if it's delayed two weeks, it's not a month more of a problem. >> Well, but there's not just our delay. There's after we send it to the select
board, there's an unknown time delay before they send it out. >> Yeah. And if you take care of the pennies, the dollars take care of themselves. Applies to time as well as money. >> Okay. So, we we'll
this is tabled for now and we'll bring it back up for final vote at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> All right. Um there's an item on here, item four, which was a recommendation to the select board for the town to request the D
engage in a discussion on the format and need for responsible management entity plan. John was working on this along with George. John let me know the other day he wasn't quite ready to bring this forward. So I'll accept a motion to table this for our next meeting.
>> Yes. I'll so move. >> Second. >> Okay. Moved and seconded. All right. >> We vote. >> No >> vote. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All right. We'll see if I'm computer
literate today. >> You want help? >> Nah, give me a shot. Give me a shot. See, I don't think if this is correct, I don't think that they would
conservation would have the authority because it says discharge impairs dissolved oxygen thresholds in the cold fishery. All >> right. >> All right. So be before I launch into this. Um I think I think most of the
board members have figured this out, but my term ends on June 30th. So um there's only a couple more meetings that I'll be attending as the chair or as a member of the board. I expect to continue to
participate. Um but you know, being on this board has been great. I believe we've made incredible progress. You know, Amy's in the midst of doing the watershed plans, which we need to have um and this has been a good forum to
bring those forward. Chuck Martinson is running an aquaculture program that we developed and um he's doing a great job on that. And the board of health has, you know, over the last year really embraced the idea that IAS will require
some level of regulations and rules and, you know, keep going on. So, some of the big things that this board has wrestled with for the last several years, I think, are pretty well, you know, moving along and there's always room for discussion.
couple of areas um that that rattle around with me are um I think Steve has got his sort of fairness like how do you distribute cost things going on but the the other item that I think is out there for this board to wrestle with over time and make some
considerations or recommendations surfaced when we had um the whole easterly project which is the easterly project is of a scale and it's producing nitrogen and it's not getting rid of all the nitrogen and there's some nitrogen
left over and what's the town's policy on that? And I'm not faulting or drawing, you know, any any opinions about the fact that at the end of the day between um the town planning folks and the, you
know, the the the other agencies that got involved, you know, some $750,000 number uh was was going to be given to help do offsets. I think there's an area for this board to really wrestle with the question is, you know, what is an offset? How does
one get to an offset and whatnot? And to that end, I have had a presentation for a couple of meetings that we've not gotten to, but um this was not adopted by the Marthur's Vineyard Commission. I don't know why exactly, but I think it provides an initial framework for the
board going forward to work with, which was um a draft on the water quality management policy. So like the Cape Cod Commission, the Marthur's Vineyard Commission, um doesn't have purview like the board of
health, but they do have purview over uh developments of regional interest interest bigger projects if you will and they used a rubric um which defined nitrogen loading limits per acre for each watershed. So they went back to
some meat the um you know the the the the background work that talked about how much nitrogen and they they broke that into acreage loadings. Um and their proposed regulations was looking to seek
greater nitrogen reduction than required by the Commonwealth under the local board of health regulations. In other words, to not get any more nitrogen into the system. And they came up with, and I apologize because I'm an engineer, not an English major. And Tom will correct me.
Strategies has got a red line underneath it, which means it's not a strategy, which I think is an Italian dish that you get after a good meal of uh >> probably high nitrogen. >> But anyways, um so they they they're
>> what? >> Yeah, I'm trying to make it so I can see better. But >> keep going. Move to my seat. Move to my seat. >> What happens if I do that? There. >> Perfect. >> So, anyways, their mitigation strategies were were of three sites. One was
on-site nitrogen load reduction. The second one was offsite mitigation and the third one was monetary mitigation. So the limits per acre is an adjusted parameter developed by among the Marthur's vineyard commission from MEP
data and for any given wershed the values used to develop over the wershed area the MEP nitrogen load limit the TMDL the load reduction required the percentage of TMDL that is excess load and then the
nitrogen allowed per MEP in kilograms per acre per becomes the MEP load for the WHED area and then they come up with a nitrogen impairment multiplier for example if the load exceeds the N the TMDL by 26%
that would be percent not an and sign the multiplier is 0.74 so the adjusted nitrogen load limit per kilogram acre per year so that's math but
on-site mitigation. If nitrogen loading with Title 5 exceeds the allowed adjusted loading per acre, then the system needs to be an IIA system. They suggested the bond needed to be posted for the IIA systems performance.
And then if with the functioning IIA still exceeded the loading per acre, a developer would need to provide off-site mitigation. One of the things they said was off-site location must be downstream of the
project, not upstream but downstream. And that would be permanently restricting a separate property within the watershed from development. Offset is based on acreage and the adjusted adjusted nitrogen load per acre. Or off-site mitigation could be achieved
by connecting a mitigation site to a sewer or installing an IIA system. And then they went to the third level. If it's not possible to reduce the nitrogen load either on site or at a mitigation site, the Martha V vineyard
commission may consider a monetary contribution. This is not a you know an absolute but they may and the payment would be required before occupancy permit issued and it goes into an escrow account for the impacted wershed
and the money would be used exclusively for the initiative that the commission determines will contribute to improving the water quality in the wershed. The draft regulations were created in 2018. Um so I'm going to there's going to be
some costs in here but costs have not been escalated by me to 2026 but they define mitigation is the total lifetime capital and operational costs and they did their calculations based on the nitrix IIA system at the time
they had a capital cost of 27,000 for a system sized for 3 to fivebedroom house costs excluded were engineering survey no landscaping costs assumed existing septic tank and leeching field and mitigation site can
be reused and then the operating costs maintenance testing electricity were $365 per year and they declared the useful life of a system would be 40 years so except for the some of the numbers being 2018 not 2026
you know this is typical from things we've looked at for IIA systems total lifetime cost at that time they calculated as 41,6 600. So, put that out there. I'm going to
open it up for discussion at this point. But, um, I I do believe that one of the charges for this board going forward should be to to to wrestle with the what is it what does it mean? What does it mean for developments and
more nitrogen in in in areas beyond what we already planned on? And what is a developer obligated to do to get his nitrogen down? >> Steve, you're you're chairing the board board right now because I'm up at the podium. What would you like to do?
>> That's a good way to keep me quiet. So now I've got to start with everybody else. Okay. >> I think we want Ken. >> Um Okay. So a couple of You >> want me to go backwards? >> No. No. Uh no. I mean it's a nice
outline of a strategy. I don't know what the authorities you know the legal power of the commission is versus the town versus the planning board. There is some the other thing that jumped into my head was we already have board of health
doing some regulation which is and and we know they have authority to do certain things uh pretty stringently. um and whatever. If we were to adopt something like this, we'd have to coordinate it obviously with their efforts, right?
>> I uh I I would envision that, you know, when this board got to a certain point of what what they thought was reasonable, it would probably have to go as a planning board bylaw regulation, you know. >> Yeah. Uh well, planning board town
meeting. planning board would would deal primarily with new subdivisions. Uh zoning board, you know, since the town is like 90% built out, uh most of the impacts might come from
expansion of existing houses, which would trigger all the board of health stuff. Uh, some thought needs to go into into because that would end up in the zoning board. Bailey wake. >> No, this is I'm throwing a rock in the pond and I'll let you guys figure out
where the waves are. >> Of course. And then you're going to go off to Florida or something. >> Uh, Florida's too flat for me. There's no no place over 800 ft high >> and that's on the border with Georgia. >> Anyway, it's all >> whole another story.
all interesting and laudable. But I just Yeah, the devil is always in the details, right? The I think it's a a worthwhile concept to consider a mitigation policy.
Um, as far as, you know, how and where it would be needed. Now, we're we're in the process as a town of developing, you know, watershed plans in great detail for all the 14 odd wersheds we have. And it will
cover as part of that analysis the potential for any future development. What can happen may happen on the piece of land. We we know from experience with 40Bs that when that rears its ugly head, all bets are off
and town policies and ideas and mitigation strategies be damned. And and that's an issue that I think we we want to consider. Should we take some sort of a stand and have uh the select board
push the legislature to solve that issue of housing versus environment because that is what it comes down to. the the exercise with the Easterly and some of the other smaller projects got into mitigation and because there was no
clear guidelines, you know, they think the the ZBA went with a a best effort and I think they did a great job, but 40B trumps all at this juncture. um probably 20 years ago now, there was a a
group formed to repeal via citizens initiative position in a ballot question repeal 40B. It failed. Um 40B is a flawed document as far as I'm concerned and has a whole bunch of problems and has become a a way for developers to do
things that just really don't make a heck of a lot of sense, but they can because housing trumps all. So I think that's part of call it a grandmaster strategy. How do we do the mission statement of water quality management
which is to restore the estuaries and the state has stringent rules they put upon us but then they tie our hands to great extent and they fall short of enforcing their own regulations as you
know Mr. Shilling eloquently stated on the project that we discussed earlier. So I think it's a good starting concept something we should make an agenda item going forward to okay what if any kind of a mitigation policy should be part of
our recommendation to the select board and eventually the rest of the town authorities like board of health. Can can I make one additional comment? >> Can we just go down the road before I turn it back over to >> just has to do with with >> Go ahead.
Uh I mean town meeting just voted to increase affordable housing by allowing multiple units on a lot by allowing tiny houses etc. as if because the house is small the amount of waste coming out of the people in that house
are not going to be any smaller. Uh so we we have conflicting priorities and figuring out how to resolve those is is difficult. Um, >> not just 40B is what I was trying to say.
>> Good point. I think I'm next in line because you're the speaker. Um, two things. One, um, I'm not sure how this fits into the timing of our overall strategy. I mean, we're already paying Kristen to do
watershed things and and this is like a whole different philosophy almost. and the I mean that we have we figure out the areas closest to the water bodies in
each watershed to meet the DMDL taking the the buildite into account and and the other thing I see as a potential more nitty-gritty problem is the necessity for grandfather clauses or in other words if you imagine a watershed
that has a a dense area of population and then some rural area. You clearly don't want the rural area to be built out to the same density as the existing crowded area. Uh but how how do you balance the
fairness between the existing homeowners in the crowded area and the people that want to build in the less crowded area? >> Um I think it's a pretty good uh roadmap to think about. One of the areas which
I'm not sure how you calculate is the monetary remediation. For instance, in this easterly project, there was a $750,000 mitigation for what they were planning to do. I'm not sure how that was determined
and it seems to me that's an area which should have a lot more thought put into it. >> Yes, I agree. I think that $750,000 came out of thin air. I I I think it's a really interesting
idea and it certainly bears some extra thought and analysis and I'll stop there. >> I guess hearing John talk about the rules that the board of health already has that if it's a a development of five or more homes that already required to go to a cluster system. So, would this
not apply in this case or are we just talking about um separate homes as opposed to a um a 40B housing project? Because won't that get us there if we require that project to develop cluster system that's at 3 milligrams per liter equivalent to what the wastewater
treatment plan does? Isn't that our goal? Would we not be satisfied with that or are we looking to do something different? >> Why? So just to help you out a a a cluster IIA system is probably going to
be able to reliably get to 10 will not get to three. Okay. So you in other words we saw that stuff from George about how the variability in the systems a cluster system is more likely to hit the 10 or slightly less target.
I was just framing that if somebody's going to develop a place in a nitrogen sensitive area that remaining 10 milligrams per liter value in theory needs to be offset somehow in
order to have no additional nitrogen. And again, this is this was a a broad outline of of of where they they got to in the island looking at, you know, try to do this, see if you can do that, and if you can't
do that, there's a cost offset that the money can be used someplace else to, you know, maybe provide subsidies to homeowners to put in their own IAS. I don't know. >> But you said they chose not to use it. >> I don't know why they didn't implement it. I don't know. That would be the only
obvious next question to ask, right? >> Well, as as a person on the board, you could go pursue that. >> Steve, can I just go ahead? >> Um, so a number of years ago, the board of health adopted that five uh any
development with five or more dwellings had to put in a cluster system. And when we did it, we mandated that would reach 12 milligrams or better. Now in the last year, the board of
health has updated its home rule regulations and they now require IAS to meet 10 or less. So in fact, they have gone back and changed that 12 to 10.
So just to make it consistent within their home rule regulations. >> Anybody in the audience want to comment to this? Amy had her hand up first and I got you. >> Um thank you Steve. I think it would be helpful for the town to think about this
ahead of time um because the projects come along and it would be good to have ZBA or planning or you know all the reviewing authorities have something to work with um instead of creating something new. Um Steve Leighton in
response to what you were saying the the watershed planning process um is is dealing with existing load as well as a rough estimate a very rough estimate of buildout to the extent that
the town can reduce the difference between those two. The town reduces the amount it has to do to offset that buildout. So, um the buildout amount doesn't have to be up here or up here. It, you know, if the town gets
um project proponents to offset more of their um development impact as far as nitrogen, then the town has less to do as far as requiring IAS in other areas or PRBs or whatever. In in other words,
you the new construction you require a more difficult standard in order that the existing buildings can be at some at not such a difficult standard
>> potentially. Yep. I mean many of the eststeries >> I'm not saying it I'm not trying to make it look bad. I'm just trying to clarify what exactly what you're saying and what the advantage is. Many of these estuaries are already above their nitrogen capacity as you know the the
watershed is there's more nitrogen coming from the watershed than the estuary can accommodate. So um it's not like we have an extra buffer. We have to do all this removal and then do additional work to to address growth. And to the
extent that the town can reduce that that that new load that's coming in from growth, it reduces the amount of work the town has to do to offset that. So anyway, it's just support for the the discussion. >> Matt,
>> um good evening. Um Matt Hanley from Thomas Landers Road. Um I I agree with what Amy is saying is that you know our wersheds are impaired and um I don't believe focusing on nitrogen it as one
nutrient in a larger picture is if we were to adopt this which I I believe the town of Falmouth should consider this now that we're looking at like a larger scope with the board of health and the freshwater ponds committee and the water quality management committee you know
focusing on our estuaries I believe that this discussion we should look at like all the nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus being the leading nutrients and then the per acre is actually good because it would it would it would force
developers to to to maintain open space to get their numbers and like to to be I think Tom said that 90% or someone on the board mentioned that the town of Fmouth was like 90% developed that
there's only really like 10% of space that open space that could be developed in the developments and and that open space is going to be inland. It's going to be like Hatcheville, you know, Hatchville is going to be the the only like it's kind of like the last harrah
that you you have largecale farms and and stuff like that that possibly could be converted into housing. And so we need to look at more nutrients than just nitrogen. We need to look at nitrogen phos phosphorus and um because it's
going to have to sweep through our like Amy was saying it's going to have to sweep through our wersheds. it will end up in the estuaries, but you know um recently with the Cape Cod Country Club, it ended up going to solar panels. But if it didn't go to solar panels, that
could have been a housing project and that would have been at the headarters of the Kunameset River and we would have been in the same predicament that Walkway Bay is being in is that it would have taken this the path of lease resistant through the Kunameset River and it would have went down and it would
have been in our estuaries and it would have been a problem. And so I believe Steve's proposal is a smart proposal. let's come up with a regulation now before these these future developments or rehabs, you know,
come online. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. Others, >> you want to jump back in Ed? >> I do. If I may. Um, just to mention cluster systems again.
They do perform much better than an IIA, a single IIA for many reasons. Economy of scale, continuous operation and load, more uniform than something that might be just a seasonal house. And the nitrex
system, um, not the nitro, but the nitrex pombardos system has conditional approval for greater than 2,000 gallon per day capacity, which is what a cluster system would do. Now, Nitrex and
Nitro are both putting in cluster systems at some of the developments. Um, Nitro more doing single family homes, but Nitro systems are being put in, I think, a pair of them on uh Brick Kilm Road near the high school, that
development by the church u across the street from where they were planning at one point to do the police station. So, they can get down to extremely low levels. The more houses you have, the better they work. The other thing they do is for mitigation purposes, allow the
opportunity a suggested in the draft letter as originally written to expand the capacity beyond the existing development and allow other homes in the near vicinity to also tie
in. Then you can take that residual nitrogen after treatment from the 25 or 50 or 300 houses and even if you get it down to 10 parts per million or less, you still have some additional kilograms going into the estuary. By mitigating
via either a monetary contribution or sizing your plant to allow additional houses to tie in, you can be achieve net zero nitrogen to the estuary. you could actually size it enough to reduce nitrogen
in the estuary by allowing other houses to be treated. So that it's a way of doing the mitigation. And and lastly, I would say my understanding of that $750,000 uh contribution from the easterly that it didn't just come out of the air. It
was based on a rough estimate of a PRB that didn't prove technically feasible. So it was the estimated cost of that couldn't do it but we'll give you the money anyway and Felmouth you do with it as you will that was my understanding of where that number came from. So that's
all day the manga green center. I hope you all had a chance to look at the summary that we sent you because it doesn't come up here as if that's an option, >> right? Eco toilets are better than any
IIA and it never comes up as an option. And I would like to see that as an option because it shows over and over again. It showed it 10 years ago. It showed it again. This time we did it for four four months. We will do it for two more
months. But it's very consistent. Hardly any load of nitrogen or phosphorus is going into the ground. much less than any IIA. So it should be part of it. So if you want to reduce the the loads instead of just working on 10 milligram,
we have it much less than that. So you have to do fewer of them to get to the the load that you want to reduce. >> Can I ask a question? >> No. >> No. >> Well, no. I'm just trying to figure out if we're
on topic for mitigation. >> It is mitigation. Okay. >> It's a simple question. >> Go ahead. >> The the urine diversion project that's now beginning run by the mass test center
is hopefully going to give us enough data to allow urine diversion as an optional alternative to IAS. Let's suppose that succeeds. Are you proposing to go beyond that and
require urine diversion instead of IAS or to leave it as an option to the homeowner? >> Well, if you're trying to find systems that reduce the total load as Amy was saying that we have to find ways to make it less and less so that we we have
fewer people that have to do eco toilets >> and the technical argument >> but it's not only urine diversion the eco toilets the composting toilets have a extremely low I I understand it and I agree with you. What I'm saying, are you proposing
requiring that certain groups of people use them or allowing it as an option? >> Either or. That's very clear >> as an IIA option type of option. Yeah, absolutely. >> Think we're moving in that direction, >> but it never comes up. So, I would like
it to be part of the discussion more often as we try to reduce the nitrogen load as quick as possible. And we don't have to wait for that project because a lot of the composting toilets are already approved. People can already do it. People already want to do it. They cannot do it or they don't want to do it
right now because they're not guaranteed that if they put that in that they don't have to do an IIA even though we are proving that right now, >> right? >> But it hasn't been approved by the board of health that that could be as an as an uh
as a way to guarantee that those people don't have to do an IIA. And I know numerous people that want to put a composting toilet in right now if they knew that they didn't have to do an IIA. So it should be part of the discussion more often. I just don't hear it. And so
I would like to ask you to have that part of it. That's why we made this report. That's why we did this research. Thank you. uh Earl Barnhart Green Center in the town's uh CWMP um
there's a a section that says if in a place where an IIA is required >> and the the last conversation we were having was a presentation of how the Martha's Vineyard commission define mitigation
opportunities. We're starting to veer off into another spot. >> You know, you're going to be on the next next agenda and and you can get your time then. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Just try to stay on topic. Okay. Anybody else on the Martha's
Vineyard mitigation and the value of that or not? Okay. All right. Um, everybody should have the minutes. I can I just make a general comment about it? >> You can do whatever you want. uh because I I think the board needs to pick its
battles and if we go down a path of so I think you're under your leadership we've done made tremendous progress on the watershed management plans and I it crystallized in my mind as you began ah there is an actual strategy to get to
the end of you know doing some remediation um and I'm wondering If you know this is going to involve a lot of complex discussion about what's the role of planning, zoning, how does
it interact with health or to health is that the most profitable thing for us to think about or a couple of other things that occur to me that are important. One of which and I don't know how we go about this is this question of
concentration versus load. if there's any possibility that we can be more effective at maybe catalyzing a movement at the state level perhaps by getting all the towns involved
in changing that criteria. That would be a really good focus for us. If another one is this question of affordable housing versus uh and development versus the the uh >> so let me do this on the next on the
next agenda I'll put an item in to talk about where does the board want to go. Okay. >> Yeah. I think that would be good because that's really what this was right. you you raised this as >> I've been I've been trying to put this out for a couple of months that you know watching what unfolded with the easterly
and the questions on the 750 and what does it cover and everything else I tried to find the best model I could find where somebody tried to wrestle with what are offsets what is mitigation mean this that's the one I found and I just wanted to set it in front of
everybody >> as a thought process not as a mustd do right okay >> all All right. Um going to move on. >> Yes. >> To item seven. Um Tom, as usual, has done a phenomenal job of uh making sure
the minutes uh are grammatically and thematically correct. And um unless others have comments on the minutes, I would entertain a motion. >> So moved that they be Tom wants to say something. >> No, I'm I'm ready to vote.
>> Okay. I I have an edit. >> John's gonna back me up on >> Tom. Tom's got an edit. >> There I have an edit on uh you may have already got it, but uh under agenda item
1A. Uh it mentions that um there would be it should state that there is no de detour on Route 28 after Memorial Day. Not on Memorial Day, but after Memorial Day. So work on 28 ceased at Memorial
Day and would resume in the fall. >> Where where is um >> under right right here >> agenda item 1 a >> down here says Great Pond phase one ongoing progress. >> Oh ongoing. >> So there's no work at 28 after Memorial Day.
>> After Memorial Day. >> Okay. >> That's all. >> That is all thankfully. >> Okay. Do we have we have a motion for to approve the minutes as noted? >> Yes. >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. >> All those opposed. It's good. Last uh any any further comments from the about the minutes? No. All right. Um and then the one vote that there's no discussion on item eight.
Does anybody want to make >> move tojourn? Second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.