Heat. Heat. It's good to have somebody whoever sits in that chair. >> 4:30. It's uh time to start the meeting. We're we're waiting anxiously for name tags. Um I think most of you have been here to a number of meetings and know
the members that have been on for some years, but uh we have two new members that uh started as as soon as they were sworn in. Hopefully, you guys have been sworn in. And um to the far end is Alan Robinson
and to my left is Peter Walsh. So glad to have him as part of the committee. This is actually their second meeting and um we'll proceed. Um I'm going to start off with something unusual, a public service announcement to the
general public and those here because you're interested in environmental stuff. The board of health is down a member. They need someone and nobody is applying. Now, if you know someone of the scientific community service bent that
would be willing to make that commitment, have them talk to the people on the board of health or Scott McGan about what's involved and whether they might want to put their name into the select board for the position. But they they really need an additional person. Uh
so that's my public service. Okay. First item on the agenda besides that is correspondent received information only. No discussion, no vote. Um there were several emails today to some of us on the committee and some other people
involved from the green center um about uh the watershed plans and about an RME letter that we forwarded to the selectman two weeks ago that was approved at our last meeting on July 8th. Uh so that is the only
correspondence I have seen or am aware of. And with that, the uh main item on the agenda tonight, I I've got an overly ambitious agenda, I believe. But on late Friday, I was asked to add in the number two, draft watershed management plans
for Quistet Harbor and West Felmouth Harbor. And I see we have our friend from West Felmouth Village Association back there. Uh so Kristen, it's all yours. >> Thanks. All right, Kristen Rathton, ScienceWarses. Um, at
the last meeting, Amy LOL took my place. Um, and started talking to you guys about the way we're developing draft watershed management plans for each of the estuaries. Uh, she did a pretty good job going through, watching the
feedback, um, incorporating it. All of the elements are still there. Nothing overarching has changed. Um I've tried to streamline how I present it so it's not too overwhelming for everyone. Um so
we are doing two tonight semi easy some more simpler ones I won't say easy. Um so Quissit Harbor so Quisset Harbor is on the buzzard side. This is the extent of the Quissit Harbor wershed.
So as Amy explained last week the all of these estuaries all of these wersheds have been designated as nitrogen sensitive areas. So that falls under title five regulations that either
every parcel within this wershed upgrades their septic system or the town applies for a watershed permit. So the town has opted to apply for a watershed permit. Under those watershed permit regulations, the town can use whatever
alternative technologies it may want to to try and remove the nitrogen. So you have what is called the preferred plan. And then you have a statemandated plan that says create
something that doesn't use any alternatives because we're not sure that the state is really going to accept these alternatives or if they don't perform to the level you're anticipating. So there's a whole plan that has to be developed without things like shellfish and the fertilizer bylaw
reduction credits. um any of those alternatives, even high-erforming um nitrogen reducing septic systems. So, a plan has to be developed for that. But we know from data that's coming in that
the alternative technologies do reduce nitrogen. Maybe they don't all get to the level that's anticipated. So what the the group is working on is a contingency plan that is specific for
Falmouth. So in this plan we are looking at things like the shellfish potential that's out there and maybe only counting half of what we think it can do and a portion of the fertilizer and storm water credits and maybe giving a little
bit more buffer to the septic reduction. again to try and put some contingency factors within here's the optimum preferred plan that we're developing that solves the equation gets to the number with the least amount of implementations and then here's
foundless backup plan and then there's a whole another plan that's for the state and that's for the state alone so what you're seeing on this table I have the two plans the preferred plans so again using all of the alternative technologies ies that the town thinks is
appropriate for this watershed and then contingency values. So for the watershed permitting for the map what we have done is we have updated the septic load from the time of
the Massachusetts estuaries project report and the total maximum daily load report. That's based on current water use. So we're taking that and we're combining it with the land use that came from these reports to have the present
loading to the estuary. So right now there's about 1,200 kg being loaded into Quiset Harbor. The target according to the TMDL report is 967. So that's 230 31 kilograms that need to
be removed. So since the time of the MEP and the TMDL, there are a couple of IAS in that wershed. So there's a reduction from those. Um I will jump down here. There is because the town has the fertilizer bylaw in place, there's a
credit for a 25% reduction from the attenuated fertilizer. Same with storm water. And this is where the atmospheric deposition reduction is as well. Um, so we know Amy talked about those
the shellfish. So there's a blue area over here and a blue area over here. These are the areas that marine and environmental services have identified in this particular estuary as potential for municipal shellfish aquaculture. And
again at their full potential for what those areas are could anticipate 98 kg reduction. Um when we look at the contingency plan you can see we're counting half of that. Um so that's the difference side by side.
So the preferred plan would be for direct abutters within the inner harbor subwaterhed to go through septic nitrogen reduction. Um
that's just the abutters in that area. If it is equivalent to 10 milligs per liter or 62% reduction in septic nitrogen, this would be the anticipated load under that scenario. If it's 12 milligrams per liter, again, that little
buffer contingency, which 12 milligrams equates to a 54% reduction, this is what those septic systems get you. So, this is simple math for what the alternatives are. The golf course down here has reported they have increased their use
of fertilizer since the time of the MEP, so that works against us. So you see down here for the watershed pretty big totals. That's all well and good on a watershed level. There are two subinvit
harbor. There's a reason why there's implementation suggested in the inner harbor versus the outer harbor. So the outer harbor the the MEP report and the TMDL report actually break down
targets by major subwater sheds. So those are the two in there for the main imbement when you consider the reduction from atmospheric deposition um that alone the reduction needed in the main harbor has been exceeded. So
there's no additional implementation but it's been exceeded so much is why it's driving these high high percentages because there's work to do in the other subwaterhed according to the TMDL report.
So using the numbers I do the same thing I do this on a subwatershed level. So I look at inner harbor and apply what implementations are there. I look at the outer harbor and then for presentation here we're looking at the whole w whole watershed.
So looking at the preferred plan so just the direct abuts up here plus the shellfish that's in the inner harbor which are those and then the corresponding atmospheric deposition for the inner harbor the fertilizer reduction. The
inner harbor gets just over 100% of what the TMDL report is saying needs to be reduced. So that is part of what needs to be reported to the state to say here is what the plan is to get the number that we say is being loaded into the
wershed down to the number you say that the wershed needs to be at. So that's how we're solving the math. Um and for reference buildout which I'll talk about in the next slide the preferred plan achieves buildout.
So the contingency plan again back here as a whole watershed the whole watershed is exceeding however the inner harbor is not. So under a contingency plan additional IAS would potentially need to be
implemented again within the subwaterhed where the reduction is needed or indicated that it's needed. So in this case, the addition of these IAS um septic upgrades gets the inner harbor to about 96%.
Whole wershed is still over. Buildout's at 94%. So buildout we're doing in a very similar capacity. So if we go back here, this is our updated present load. So about 1,200 kg entering the wershed
right now. Part of the requirement of the watershed permit is you the town has to present a plan of how it's going to offset growth for the next 20 years. So the duration of the watershed permit. So 1,200 kg the town decided that the
values presented in the MEP for their build on out build out analysis were still valid. So that's the number that we're working with. Um so it's about 1,700 kg. So 500 kg difference
target reduction doesn't change. So the 967. So now we're looking at again looking at the preferred plan and the contingenc conting contingency plan how they stack up side by side. Um so under the
preferred plan what you saw that came to a reduction of 364 kilograms a year. So this big giant orange parcel, this is the Wheeler forest that was acquired for conservation since the time
of the MEP. Um, so we have taken what the projected buildout for that parcel was and removed it because it has a conservation restriction on it. So that is what this value here um that value
comes from the Cape Cod Commission's MVP planning tool because it's at your fingertips. But I also went into all of the M calculations to verify it, which is a very tedious process to try and
find out how one parcel links to that whole plan. Um and they're in pretty close agreement. So that 205 so remember it was about a 500 kg difference that would between where we are presently and where MEP
says the growth is. So now we've subtracted 200 kg out of there. So we got 300 left. The existing board of health regulation that states all new flow in the wershed in any NSA has to be at 10 milligrams
per liter. So the equivalent of a 62% reduction. I've taken that 300 kilograms and applied that reduction. So it's about 62%. So that reduces buildout by another 200 kilograms a year.
So that's how we're achieving buildout from that scenario. Looking at the only difference over here is the per uh the contingency plan had slightly less nitrogen reduction. So not as much buildout. Does the town
anticipate Quisit's going to hit buildout in 20 years? Probably not, but that's the number that we're using. So that all of those tables is what the requirement from the state says we have
to do. Again, showing the equation of how we're getting the numbers to agree. Now we have to consider what the actual data is telling us. So for Quisit, the Sentinel Station is up in the inner
harbor. You can see Sentinel Station data for at least the last 15 years is pretty much either at or below its target threshold. So water quality in there is
pretty good. Quisit is the highest water quality in all of Falmouth. Um, so that's something to consider as well. Uh, Buzzard's Bay Coalition, they do their bay health index because it's
not just nitrogen alone that determines the health of the waters. So they have all of their data up online, but they incorporate factors such as the nitrogen, the dissolved oxygen, how long, how often does it dip below the threshold for oxygen, how's the water
clarity, um, and how much chlorophyll are you seeing in there. So they combine all of it and they give the the estuary score or that specific uh sampling station. So you can see Quiset Harbor has always been in the good range as far
as water quality. So why why would the town have to do anything? That's where phasing would come in which I'll talk to next. The other piece of information, this is the egrass that comes from the uh mass from
the state GIS website from their seaggrass surveys. It only tells you from the satellites where there's potentially eel grass, not necessarily what the health of the eel grass is. But this is what the progression of eelgrass inquisite harbor has looked like from
their surveys. So last thing to note for quiset again as I said at the start it's designated as a nitrogen sensitive area. So the options for the town is either everybody installs best available nitrogen reducing technology or the town seeks a
watershed permit. Um again it's the healthiest water surface water uh estuary in Falmouth. So the town still has to present a plan to the state but that doesn't mean that
everything in that plan has to be implemented in the first year. So the TMDL is the model that said the number. The water quality data is also guiding how the final plan gets put together. So
for Quisit, the proposed approach may recommend simply continue monitoring for the first several phases of the watershed permit. So the permit is a 20-year permit and it's broken up into four or fiveyear phases. Um, something
else to consider for that would be pursuing removal of Quisit from the 303D list. So, the list of integrated waters, it's still designated as a nitrogen sensitive area right now. Also, deferring any potential septic upgrades
or septic nitrogen reduction until later in the permit after adaptive management tells you whether or not you actually need to put them in and make those changes. So that's what I have to say about Quizit.
>> Okay, questions. Uh we we'll do one watershed at a time in the interest of efficiency questions from the board. Uh go ahead, Steve. >> Well, can you go back to your first data slide? Yes.
>> Uh no, the sec the one for the subwhed. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, the >> this is build. Yes, that one. Okay, that's build out. >> I understand what you're doing with the math, but it I think I do, but
it looks weird to me that your contingency plan that you're present that we're presenting a contingency plan that's not as good as the preferred plan. I mean, the idea of it, I think the way D is thinking of it is that it's
a backup. It's a conservative approach. >> That's the third plan doesn't work. That's the third plan I'm not showing you. >> That's not as good. That sounds bizarre. >> So, this is where Falmouth is saying, well, maybe shellfish don't take off.
Maybe these septic reductions aren't doing what we think. This is Felmouth saying this is our backup if you consider. So for the state requirements right now their traditional approach is
either sewering or best available nitrogen reducing technology at 19 mg per liter. In that case the entire subwaterhed needs to be upgraded to meet the state
backup plan. So, as I said in the beginning, there's there's three plans, and we're not really showing the state one here because we have to present it in a report, but it's not really anything Felmouth intends to actively pursue within that 20-year period to get
to that extent. They will look at this preferred plan and this contingency. So the town's internal contingency implement what needs to be implemented over that watershed permit monitor and
then make the decision after how far down DP's road you need to go unless we get different guidance from the state. >> I I guess I hear you. I just think you're opening it up for
criticism and unnecessary back and forth. if somebody at D where this is going looks at that and says that doesn't you know if they just look at the bottom line which a lot of people do when they don't want to do any
math um and they say >> so what what DP would see would be here's the preferred plan so we're going with 10 milligrams per liter we're going with full shellfish potential
we're going this route and then D would see we're taking none of that. Here's your 19. It's the whole upper subwaterhed. But what Fmouth is saying is if this doesn't prove, you know, if you're
not seeing the reductions that you need to see, we may have to do a little more to get there. And these numbers, this is a draft, so all of these numbers are movable. >> All right. So the next step for this is that it goes to D
in the winter. This winter >> when it gets submitted to D is dependent on when the town applies for the watershed permits. So right now the original schedule for how the town
was planning to apply for watershed permits was in four groups because of the 14 different estuaries. Quisit happens to be in one of the later groups because there's really not much implementation and there's not a water
quality need from the data to jumpstart that one sooner in the permit process. Um so that's in the group that I believe was getting submitted 2030. That is still the plan. There have been different conversations because this
whole comprehensive all 14 are being looked at concurrently. How that changes whether the town chooses a different route for applying for watershed permits that has not been >> okay then then we're off the hook on this one. Remind me which ones are in
the first group. >> Little pond and I believe Great Pond. >> Okay. little pond doesn't matter because it's already been done. >> Mhm. >> But I this is a general comment that has to do with all the plans, but it's
timely only for great pond. And you'll see why I'm saying this even though we're talking about quiz. I I hope you'll see. I submit that whenever well that that the great pond one will be submitted in December, right? >> Potentially.
Um, and it might get approved >> potentially. Um, I submit that it's almost too late, but that maybe we have a month to formally notify all the property owners,
not by an article in the Enterprise or by a meeting that's announced in the Enterprise, but by a letter from the town that we are thinking of um committing them to a $40,000 expenditure sometime in the next couple
of years and if they want to find out why they should come to one of our meetings. >> So Great Pond and >> that would be less notice than the five or eight years that the town is using for its own capital budget.
>> So Great Pond has a preliminary plan in the CWMP that went through town meeting. It went through D. So what this plan is doing is updating the current number to
see what else may or may not need to be done and that would be a later phase in the permit if at all in the first permit because it may not be feasible for within 20 years. I >> I still submit that many people in town
hardly know what town meeting is. I think there should be a letter to the de if not to everyone in the watershed certainly to the purple people >> and the purple >> they should get letters too.
>> Okay. Any other comments from the border questions? Go ahead Alan. >> Just a very tiny one because I just sometimes have to be skeptical when I see numbers. The 20 just coincidental that there's 205 and 205. >> I checked those about 20 times. I was like, are you serious? Yes, it was
completely coincidental. >> Okay. >> Um, D is perfectly fine with the uh with the pre preip uh reductions. Do we know that >> atmospheric deposition? I mean, it's EPA
data and a published EPA report that the reductions are documented in. So, I would hope so, right? >> Um, so we will see. >> Yeah. Okay. because and then that basically reduces the need for reductions in controllable load. >> Correct.
>> Right. >> Yep. >> Anybody else? Uh John, go ahead. >> So, has any town successfully um fought the D to get a waterway, an impaired waterway off the 303D list? Because when
I look at this watershed, I mean, all the data looks pretty good. I mean the ill grass, the actual nitrogen values, all the other indicators and in a world where we have finite resources me why are we doing anything with this in the in the near term? Um it's just
hard for me to understand because it does looks >> yes >> like it's good data and >> so there there have been removals from the list. It is a long process. The list is a two-year cycle and data has to be submitted at least one if not two years
ahead of the cycle. I think it's five years of data showing, you know, that it's meeting it and then that goes to D for review. It goes out to public comment. Um,
the town has had a lot on its plate as far as needing to pursue this. Being on the 303D list meant that it needed a TMDL developed, which it has. It's only with the designation of it being a
nitrogen sensitive area that now it has to have either Banner Technologies or a watershed permit. So, and the watershed permit for this could be Falmouth is just going to watch it. >> And if I can just part two with the new
um board of health regulations, any new home that comes in to uh NSA will have to have um a nitrogen reducing septic system. Yep. So any buildout here by definition then would have the latest greatest um >> so that's what this number is accounting
for. Yeah because all of those developable parcels were taken into account during the MEP um based on current zoning regulations what could be built there what their future septic load might be. Um and then taking as title five. So taking that as title five
and then changing it to as >> 10 which is what the board of health is saying. So that's how this number comes about. >> Okay Peter. >> Yes. Um when you are accounting for buildout uh 40b is exempt from some
local zoning. So uh is how does that uh go into the mix? Ask Ken. >> That's Ken's favorite topic. >> Well, >> you can't you can't plan for it. >> Yeah, it doesn't. And that's >> it's not part of buildout
>> problem. I mean, if I I'm not sure if there's anything we can do uh except try to marshall more forces, not just us, to, you know, make the state aware that there's this conflict.
>> Okay. The the second question is that um if people are going to have a perhaps a unpleasant surprise for a $40,000 IIA system required. Uh maybe it should
be somewhere in the footnotes that some other alternatives were considered and rejected like dredging for instance. what you do. >> Those are notes that we can definitely
include in the report. Um, and the MEP did a lot of those different kinds of evaluations. You know, I know you talked last time about inlet widening. Um, and what estuaries MEP determined were appropriate, might be appropriate to be
widened or not, and why. Um, so it's definitely things to consider and say, you know, no suitable area for this or for some of the wersheds where you can't do shellfish because either it's closed because of other contamination or it's
privately owned. Um, those will all be noted in the plans. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, anything else from the committee? You know, in the interest of time because we're already a half hour into this. If there's a specific question from the public relative to
Quissit, I would entertain that. If it's general about watershed planning, I would ask that we defer that till after uh West Falmouth Harbor is put up. Matt, you want to comment? Go ahead, introduce yourself. You know the drill. Good evening. Matt Hanley from Thomas
Landers Road. Quisit Harbor is one of my favorite places for recreation and um the Knob obviously is a is a big part of uh Falmouth's like draw as a tourist attraction and stuff like that. I will say you know can Kristen you tell me if
there's going to be any storm water improvements at Quissit Harbor. I noticed you were taking calculations for that >> DPW's engineering department. So that's question for them. So, I'd like to make a statement to put on the notes for for
um Matt uh the DPW Quiset Harbor. The storm water runoff from that road that goes around the edge of the harbor goes directly into the harbor. That that that's one way we can we can, you know, improve water quality there. There is there is some catch basins, but they're
within 3 ft of the seaw wall. So even if that water is going into a into a into a catch basin, it's not it's going directly into the through the seaw wall right into the harbor. You know, those are easy lowhanging fruit. There's you
know the state and um conservation department of u conservation was giving out grants for that for for doing catch basin uh work. Th those are money that the DPW could be taking into account.
And one of the questions that I see is like I come to a lot of these meetings, the sentinel station is usually centered, you know, in the in whatever estuary. This one's like off to one side. Obviously, you're going to get
higher readings if you're like right off taking taking measurements right off a dock and you know where the flow is actually entering the harbor instead of having it centered like you see in any of these other estuaries. that I don't think I've ever seen another estuary
that has a sentinel station that's that's within a short distance to the shoreline. So, you know, that's one way I think Jonathan's comments are, you know, very valid that, you know, this harbor is in good shape and, you know,
tidal flushing besides because of the side of the harbor and from the wind and stuff like that, oxidation, you know, this harbor is great. Obviously, you can do better, you know, and any improvements are going to be good improvements, but that Sentinel Station, why was it placed there? I I you know,
that that could make a huge improvement. We could take this take this off and and and you know, um help our with our town's resources. >> Good, good question. Can you answer that, Kristen? >> As far as why the Sentinel stations there, >> that's that's an Smass question. It had
to do with the hydrodnamics and I don't know why stations were determined, but that was that was what they used. >> Yeah. >> And that's the long-term monitoring station now. So, >> okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else brief on this
specific harbor? If not, let's do the next one. Thank you. >> All right. West Falmouth. West Felmouth has a few more subwater sheds in it and a few other unique circumstances. So
everything I said at the beginning of Quisit holds true for West Falmouth. Um this is what West Falmouth looks like right now. All of the yellow parcels, those are where existing nitrogen reducing septic systems are located in the wershed. Um the light green parcels,
those are not currently developed and are not likely to develop based on what their land use codes are. Um not necessarily all designated conservation, but not not likely to develop. So that's what the wershed
looks like right now. So going to present in a similar fashion but slightly different because this one has an outfall to consider. So, we still have a preferred plan. There's still contingent different levels of
contingencies, which I'll get to, but then there's the with an outfall and with an without an outfall. So, we updated the current loading to the wershed and this is whole watershed. So, 6,100 kg. The target for West Falmouth
is 6700 kg. the target has been met and that has been for years DP considered West Falmouth to be the first watershed on paper to achieve its TMDL. So we're still waiting to see that in
the surface waters. So all of those nitrogen reducing septic systems that are out there, all of those little yellow dots, they are an additional 100 kilograms reduction a year. So even better. So the target's been achieved
without implementation. Now with an outfall, what's being discharged into various subwaterheds is about 478 kg. So again, watershed levelwise, we're making it
even better. However, there are three three subbanements that exceed their nitrogen reduction target. So those three again on paper based on these numbers inner westmouth harbor,
snug harbor and mashipacwa creek there are three that are not meeting their nitrogen reduction targets on paper. So outer westmouth harbor harbor head and oyster pond. So in the case of outer
westmouth harbor if an outfall goes in and landbased discharge ceases that subwaterershed will meet its target. So wershed wide total here is the draft preferred and
contingency plan. So, same color scheme, dark purple, the purple people being the preferred people, and then lighter purple contingency. Dark blue, all the shellfish areas marine and environmental services have
identified. So, this is a big giant table with a lot of information, but it's laid out the same way, I promise. So these are your six subwaterheds. So we're looking at the preferred plan.
So your dark purple people and your outfall and the contingency if it needs it. Again, every major subbanement has its own load and its own target that we're looking at. So you could remove
everything out of Snug Harbor and call the whole watershed good like we saw in Quisit where the numbers vastly exceeded what you needed but not location specifically. So those implementations are being
proposed where they need it based on the model numbers. So there are parcels direct to butters in Harbor head and then pretty much all of the parcels
in the Oyster Pond subwaterhed because that is what the numbers are saying it will take to get to the targets in those specific areas. And the way the MEP and the TMDL lay it out is if your subbayments are meeting their targets,
your Sentinel station should be as well. There is not a mandate to say Harbor Head has to meet its target. But it's the if you want to improve localized water quality in some of those areas, an
outfall landbased discharge is not directly coming into these subwaterheds. So an outfall is not going to do anything down here. So these are what the numbers look like. Um the big one to note is that in Oyster
Pond I said it was all of the parcels in that subwaterhed. So if we look at um septic nitrogen reduction on the either 12 milligrams per liter or a 54% reduction
having all of those parcels performing at that level doesn't get you to that target. So gets you 85% of the way there but it doesn't get you there. Are there any questions on the table or do you want me to go further into what's here?
>> Good. Um so same thing preferred plan contingency plan what does it achieve? So in outer west Fmouth Harbor without the outfall if you do all of the abutters the direct abutters
um actually without the abutters um you're 97% of the way if the outfall and you don't do any of the abutters you're 140% of the way. So when you would look at phasing in this
case, the abuters out here would not be anywhere in the near term of the permit because it's not needed. Um, and I have the water quality data like quiset to back that up. Inner West Fmouth Harbor, the target's been achieved on paper.
Harbor head, if you do just the dark purple parcels, you're getting there. Oyster Pond, all the dark purple at the higher performance level. You're getting there. Um and Snug Harbor and Masha Pacwit, you're getting there.
The whole wershed and buildout, you're getting there. Buildout is a whole separate um calculation with this wershed. So, under the contingency plan, again, same things. You know, without the outfall, the outer harbor is 85% of the way
there. So, still pretty good. Um, with the outfall, you're there without needing any septics. Um, oyster pond, that was that's the one where even if all of these guys are not performing at a high enough level, you're not meeting
that target. Does that mean it's going to have poor water quality? I don't know. Because they're currently widening that culvert or that's the plan. How that increased flushing affects the retention time of the nitrogen and overall water quality. It's not going to
directly reduce the nitrogen load, but it may flush it out faster. Uh, so this is this is the outer west falmouth, the Buzzards Bay Coalition data. So you can see their trend. Um,
again, it's rated as good right now, but that's what we're seeing in the data, but on paper, it's saying there is nitrogen that should be removed according to the model. The Sentinel Station is up here. Um,
more Snug Harbor area. So, you can see data from there. Not so great. Um, so this is just kind of the summary of the rating of all of the stations. Buzzards Bay, Coalition Monitors. You
can see down here Oyster Pond, Harbor. Um, those are where the poorer areas are. Mash Pacwa Creek and Snug Harbor. Again, the inner West Falmouth, outer West Falmouth, those guys are pretty good. So that's why implementation is
being proposed in the areas where it's showing it is needed. Uh this is from town dock station. So you can see how that has changed over time, but still rated in the good.
Snug Harbor, how that has changed over time and dropped and stayed at that level. EOGArass again from the state GIS you can see how the progression of Eorrass has declined and then stayed at a steady
level more in the outer harbor. So the things to note here uh like I said outer westmouth harbor is good um with an outfall it will reduce nitrogen there um so any potential implementation
that might be shown on paper wouldn't necessarily be required in the early stages if at all and like I said the covert widening it's not going to directly reduce nitrogen but it may improve flushing That's it.
>> Okay. Go ahead, Alan. >> It's a basic question. How does the state assess the area of eelgrass when they do these? >> I believe it's satellite and it's just a color metric of we see a dark patch here and that has indicated eel grass and I
think every so often they go in and they spot check with divers. Okay. So, did you include the PRB in the plan? >> I most certainly did. Look, it says to be determined >> because we haven't we haven't actually
gotten our own data from our own wells that are in there, >> right, >> yet, >> but it's there. But it the reduction there isn't needed on paper, but in water quality data, it's needed.
Yeah. Well, it's >> right. >> Yeah. >> Because so I guess it's a timing thing. The implementation. Do do you get instant credit for the outfall? >> That's a D question. >> Yeah.
>> I mean, we got instant credit for upgrading the treatment plant and the the estuary, the whole wershed was considered to have met its TMDL once the plume flushed out. So, I think they might be a little more cautious handing
out golden tickets. >> Yeah. Okay. Anybody else from the committee? >> Well, I just want what is the next step in considering my proposal of letters going out? I don't want it just dropped
and forgotten. Do we put it on the agenda for next meeting or do we I assume we can't vote on it now. >> No. Um >> and it's not a decision of this committee. We can recommend >> Yes. Whatever. >> Just advise
>> something other than forgetting it. >> Yes. >> So that's something I would say when Amy is present um to have a conversation if she has thoughts on how the town may want to handle that because we still have all of these are still draft stages. So nothing has been finalized.
So, it's very premature to send letters out in case for some reason the rules change. Um, >> I'm just suggesting something some procedure that's more civilized than my writing letters to the editor. >> You know, I think, you know, we can make
that an agenda item for the next meeting. If you so desire, you know, shoot me a note reminder. I'm making myself a note, but sometimes I can't read my own writing. Go ahead, Al. My recollection when Amy told us last week or two weeks ago was that the draft for
these early what it says is December, but it's only an internal draft. It's nowhere near ready to be sent to the state to you know it's nowhere near made to be quote official an official part of the plan. These these are as Kristen said draft
>> plans that are going to continue to be reviewed, updated prior to submission and then they will be going through a formal process of select board and I don't know if it has to go to town meeting to adopt and then forward them to the state but certainly
the select board is the governing authority that would approve ultimate submission of these. So >> correct. >> So there's more time than December to in terms of alerting people and >> yes >> making people aware and all that. >> Yes. But you know >> there are ramifications. People have to
get organized. There are issues of capital plan and there and the further something is along the easier it is for people in power to say you've got to be kidding. We can't make changes at this point. >> Anything else from the committee?
>> Okay. You know, one thing that I think bears discussing or mentioning is the TMDL's numbers say, hey, you know, not in bad shape for any of the embainments in the harbor as a whole. And yet, I
think everybody's well aware of the deteriorating water quality, particularly in the Oyster Pond area and um Snug Harbor. And I think most everybody's aware, but the the town was successful in mainly at uh Kristen's uh
initiation and Ken providing data to get a federal grant close to a half a million dollars for a PRB along Snug Harbor to try and provide quicker remediation to that water quality issue. So there is a I'm going to call it a
disconnect between the what TMDL says is good quality and what actual physical observation and the Buzzard Bay coalition numbers say is the water quality. You want to comment on that Kristen? So that's why historically in
the CWMP everything was presented as a watershed level because it's a lot to digest and that's why for this round for watershed management planning we're looking at the individual subbanements for those very
reasons right there. Um, you know, it's check the box to make your numbers work for the state, but actually look at the data and what you're seeing that's happening in the ecosystem and going from there. That's the whole premise of adaptive management. That's why every 5
years the plan gets evaluated. What's working, what's not, how have conditions changed, what needs to be done. So, >> thank you. Any uh brief questions from the audience? George
>> George Topoulos precinct 3 and the board of health to speak to what Steve was talking about. People don't want to know that something's going to happen when it's all a done deal and they're just
getting the bill. I have yet to meet a single person, and I'm weird in this way. When I meet people in Falmouth, I bring this stuff up and I say, you know, we're going to spend a billion dollars over the next 20 or 30 years, and we're all going to have to pay for that.
Nobody knows about it. And when I come to these meetings, not because the information is wonderfully presented, I feel more confused and out of touch than when I walked in. Uh
there's a lot here and I think that we need to get the community to know more about it and I completely agree with Steve. Um, we should be telling people here's
the general outline. The state is telling the town we have to do this. Even if you just got everybody to understand that and that we have two alternatives, the watershed plans or everybody does a nitrogen reducing
system. And we can't do any more sewers until if and when we have a sewer uh outflow pipe. And if this ballot initiative that uh will be like 40 o 40B on steroids
that says people can have subdivisions of 5,000 square feet and town can't do anything about it if they have a water connection and a sewer connection. If that ballot initiative gets on the ballot and if it passes,
people who don't have sewers are never going to support having them because then their lot, their neighbors lot can be subdivided into four pieces. >> An interesting perspective. >> And um anyway, I I it doesn't matter that the plans are preliminary. I don't
think it's just the general outline of what the project is. If everybody just was aware of that, it would be a big step forward, I think, with the community. >> I think it's a great point. And how how
you get that message out, you know, Katie and her compatriots at the Enterprise do terrific job of reporting on these issues, >> but people don't read it. >> Well, that that's my point. Thank you, George, for the support. But my point is
the way you get people's attention is not by saying that 20 people will be hung at dawn. It's by saying you will be hung at dawn. >> That gets your attention. Is that your draft letter? >> Not quite. >> Go ahead. >> I suggest that when we get to the item
number three on the agenda, the committee's objectives and activities. >> Oh yes, absolutely. >> That's where this discussion or what do something about it really applies. Yes. I I think at this point though Matt has his hand up on this on the watershed planning. So go ahead Matt, give you a couple of minutes.
We do want to move along, but we value everybody's opinion. Um Matt Hanley for Thomas Lance Road. I'm just outside the West Falmouth wershed. I almost I am also the environmental consultant for the Westmouth Village Association and especially on the sewer um subjects here
in Falmouth. Um, one of the things that's been left off that map and it's kind of alarming is the wastewater treatment facility. The wastewater treatment facility is the largest contributor of nitrogen in that watershed and you leave it off the map.
It's that that's ridiculous, you know, that that that was left off the map. You know, I I like the fact that the PRB is on there to to be determined, but the the covert at Oyster Pond, we've been
kicking that can down the road for how many years now? I've been coming to these meetings for four years and we keep on it gets talked about for a second and then there's where are we on the oyster pond covert? as as far as I
know that we already have funds for that >> really >> and we have we were doing some preliminary environmental you know studies to make sure the see what the impact was going to be but you know you guys the water quality management committee where are we on that covert
>> the last information I had was that APCC association for the preservation of Cape Cod had received a grant that was subsequently frozen and rescended so there is funds for that, but it was an active project that's sitting on the shelf
hoping for a way to make it happen. But, you know, looking at that culvert that's there, it flows pretty good. I'm amazed how good it does flow and the water clarity coming in and out of that uh oyster pond heading towards the
Buzzard's Bay. There are some side south I guess of the uh culvert that are putrid, but they're kind of a landlocked little lagoon that's covered with matt algae. But the pond itself, dang, look pretty good. Few times I've been down there already this year. It it looks
good. But it is an active project looking for funding, but ABC is heading up, not the town of Felmouth. >> Well, I I beg to differ with your your evaluation of Oyster Pond. There's a there's a green algae mat that is
suffocating that that inlet. Um that covert is damaged. It doesn't flow properly because it hasn't been dredged. You know, we could see greater improvement with some small like with a little bit of of money from the DPDO,
but a little bit of attention, we could do some dredging, maybe make that covert work more efficiently in in the meantime. But you know, you know, you know, we Kristen did a great job and I know the board pushed for that perio
reactive funding. We should we we need to, you know, make an effort. This committee needs to make an effort to get that oyster pond covert back on the agenda. then we can put it up there with that screen that you know this the one
of the missions of this board is to find the lowhanging fruit the most coste effective way to reduce nitrogen in our estuaries. So I'm challenging this board to make that make this a real effort to get that covert back on the on the
projects that are going to get done in the near future. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any others? Go ahead Tammy. Just quickly, thank you. Um, thank you Kristen for all of the information. There was a lot of information provided. I'm Tammy Gilbert at West Falmouth. Um,
I'll absorb all of that. Not anything that I can possibly absorb in this room. Um, but I appreciate all the efforts. I also was going to ask about the PRB project and what the timing is for that. Are we still planning on that beginning
construction beginning in September for that project? >> Mid to late. Okay. So, that's something that I believe is under the town's control, right? Um, APCC's Culvert project, I thought I didn't realize that the town had responsibility with that. I thought
that was the association to preserve Cape Cod that was doing that. >> It did. >> Okay. So, what role can the town play? Matteo saying >> is supposed to be working with >> Yeah. I'm just trying to understand if
there's anything that the town can do to help that project move along. >> It's my understanding that DPW and APCC were working jointly on that project. And so the water quality management committee certainly can can press for that project along with the DPW, okay,
>> to to move that project along like we did with the perial reactive barrier. you know, Snug Harbor and Wista Pond are the I think in the top five like most impacted water bodies in Buzz's Bay. >> Now, I was following the APCC project
and thought it was wonderful. You know, I was looking forward to seeing that come to fruition. This the first I heard that it stalled. So, >> that's my understanding and you know, >> we can ask or you can ask APC. >> I will do that where it stands. uh Jordan Mora who for number of years was
on this committee was last I knew the project lead on that with APCC but that's the latest data I had had on that. >> Okay. Okay. Appreciate that. >> Memo recently about what was going on there but I can't remember exactly what she said. It went out in the last month.
I think I think we all received it. I I >> I didn't see anything but >> yeah I'm just going to try to find it. It's going to take me a little if >> there's anything you can do to influence that and if there's anything that we as a community can do to also help work
with the town or influence the town to take some steps to move forward with that project, please let us know. >> Sounds good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for being here. >> Anybody else briefly talk? Go ahead, Tom. >> Yeah, I wanted to address Matt's issue because the wastewater treatment plant
is on the map. If you looked at the table where it says with the outfall there's a loss of almost 500 kilograms of nitrogen a year >> but it's not. >> So that represents >> on the map >> physically showing on the map I think you >> Well, you mean just show it as a blob on
the map? >> Well, it's more than a blob. It takes up >> well it's a cloud but but the point is is it's in here. >> Yeah, mathematically it's a count. >> It's right there. It's almost 500 kilograms of nitrogen a year. >> Yeah. I think he's looking for it to be shown on the site plan, the map of the
watershed. Here's the physical location of that. Yeah. >> And and I think, you know, just one last thing on the >> the treatment plant place in this whole scenario is >> that's part of how key the outfall is. >> The outfall when it's built
>> will end discharge to those beds. And a lot of progress has been made in the effluent of the plant over the years with plant upgrades to bring it to 3 mg per liter of nitrogen level and it consistently performs at that level. So
that helps tremendously. But ending the use of the beds will be the frosting on that cake. So >> and installing the PRVs >> that certainly we hope will help immensely and very very quickly. So, okay. Um, moving on then. Thank you
Kristen and everyone else for participating. It's been a productive hour. Um, it's an ambitious agenda as I think I may have said because I hadn't planned on the hour presentation we just did, but uh if we don't get through it all, we'll move
it to the next meeting. Okay. Uh, Tom, you've got a >> Yep. U we should >> what what this is about for folks that aren't aware is there's been a change in membership and the chairmanship of this committee. Obviously Mr. Rafferty has
stepped down after a lot of years of great service and um we need to look at how this committee functions and what we concentrate on going forward particularly in light of a loss of any funding to support technical
support. So we have no resource that we've enjoyed for many years of of science where Kristen for the last number of years to answer scientific questions, technical qu questions to continue to do uh technical research,
data crunching, outreach, uh gathering information from various agencies that regulate the situation and you know that's gone. So, how do we fill that gap to the best of our abilities and what do
we concentrate on that's most effective? So, uh >> this is very much a work in progress and I'm handing out update. >> Changed it again. >> Well, yeah. >> You got it all on one page this time. >> Um >> yeah. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, um yeah, I'll let Ed run with this, but we can scroll through it and >> Okay. um you know things that are of major import to the town I think is a the outfall and our role is outreach and
education. Um several members of the current committee and two former members attended the outfall outreach uh last week and um disappointing attendance. I thought there'd be a better turnout, but a hot summer night out in the high
school didn't bring out the crowds, but there were some very thoughtful people there. Some new faces into the dialogue from the community and some very uh educated, scientific-minded people that are familiar with the technology and the
issues and what's going on to make this thing happen. So, I think that was good. But that's I think a number one priority. Number two, IA triggers. What does that mean? Well, there is only one IIA trigger currently in Felmouth Board of
Health regs, and that's a new one started in January, and that is any new construction or flow increase upgrades to a property in a nitrogen sensitive area u as defined in the regulation shall put in a
best available nitrogen reduction technology. So the next triggers that most communities already have are upon transfer of a property because doing just flow increase and new construction gives you about 100 IAS a year. An
estimate that uh Kristen had put together with this committee over uh the past year or so looking at all the watersheds and what IAS might be needed had a number more like 6,000 at 100 years a year we're not
going to ever get there. So what is the next trigger that the board of health will implement? They pull the trigger on the trigger. They have the authority and the need to decide what's next. Other towns are doing proximity to watersheds.
They're the big one is property transfers. Quite simply, that's when the money is available. When the sale of properties, average house in Fouth, I think year to date is like $780 odd,000. Um that's when an IIA investment m makes
the most sense. Um so how do we work with the select board, the board of health and any other in interested parties to get to that next level? Uh and that's also part of the long range management plans. How do you make these IAS happen?
How do you outreach to people as Steve has said? Um next is watershed management plans. That's what we're doing tonight. We've spent the past hour on that and you know monitor the plans, be educated on them, outreach on it,
advise DPW, select board understanding that it's not a one shot the plans are done and you know we're good close down the shop. It's requires under state law and just common sense evaluate every 5 years and see what changes is it working
is it not do you need to do more or you have you done more than enough? uh constantly looking at too what's going on in the regulatory requirements being aware and in communication with state mandates state changes and what they'll permit what they will accept whether
it's innovative technologies or a new type of IIA or better performance standards and also the monitoring of the performance standards um number four great pond phase one outreach and monitoring active project they're digging the hell out of uh the great
pond watershed right Now, streets are closed, people aren't happy, but it needs to be done and it is being done as efficiently as possible, but you know, a number of us worked on outreach to those people that are impacted. To Steve's point, again, make them aware of it.
It's hard to get people to pay attention, but you do the best you can working with, you know, the enterprise and community television. Um, best available nitrogen reduction. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, I skipped number five.
This is a big one, Jonathan. Um, this has been your baby. >> Can I just make a comment on four? >> Oh, sure. Absolutely. >> Because you have monitoring there and I I just People should know uh Kristen uh has been keeping track of two sons that have been placed in the pond. So
we've been measuring oxygen at two depths now uh in you know in anticipation that there hopefully will be improvements after uh great pond phase one is implemented. So >> that's a great point.
>> I'm I'm glad you mentioned that because the monitoring of before and after conditions for the projects for things like the Snug Harbor PRB. What changes are we seeing? good or bad. Uh same
thing with the sewering in the Great Pond phase one. Is it effective? The the sounds that Ken mentions that are being monitored give us an idea of what it is now. A year from now, we'll see what happens, what's changing with the
sewering, but who's going to pay for the monitoring? Who's going to do it? Um Kristen, and I think Ken was part of it, got a grant for these sounds. I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000. Who's going to do that if this committee isn't doing it with some funding because we no longer have the
funding? Um, where is that going to fall? It's it's an ongoing issue that I think the town wants to be talking about and will be talking about. Um, so it's a great point, Ken. Thank you. >> Yeah. And that 10K just got us the equipment. Um, so, you know, there's labor involved in
making sure it's >> absolutely >> it's maintained and downloaded and interpreted and so forth. >> Yep. I mean it's a it's an ongoing expense but it's a very small percentage when you look at the overall cost the millions that are being spent to be
talking you know thousands or hundreds of thousands for monitoring and before and after evaluation I think is very important. How else do you know if you're getting to your goal if you're not seeing where are you on the map? Are you getting there and where did you start? you know, journey begins at the
beginning, but if you don't know the conditions there, and that was one of the shortfalls of of uh little pond sewing. We didn't have a tremendous amount of data. We had some and it was good data as to what was it at the start, but boy, now it's really paid off. Um,
back to number five, uh, septic tax credit. John, you want to say anything about that? Just explain it and where it stands, maybe. I mean, right now it's with the um uh House W Ways and Means Committee. Um it received a favorable uh
rating to get towards that committee, but when I talk with Representative Vieiraa, there's no schedule on when bills get heard. It's really tugging arms in the halls of, you know, the legislature and getting enough people
who want to hear the bill. Right now, I'm not sure it's going to get heard. It's probably going to the legislative session is going to expire soon. I haven't seen any evidence that this bill is moving beyond where it's at. So, we'll have to reapply for the next two-year cycle if nothing happens. And
we've sent out, you know, letters to the legislators and the cape people, and we've done a big, I think, um, effort to try to make people aware why this is important, but at the end of the day, it's it's the people on the House Ways and Means Committee have to latch on to it and bring it to the floor for a vote.
And that hasn't happened yet. >> And this is part of outreach to PE to get people understand what this is all about, what it means for IIA requirements going forward and get our legislators and other bodies to, you
know, grab the arm of their compatriots in the hallways on Beacon Hill and say, "Hey, this is important." You know what it means, if everybody's not familiar, is there's a tax credit of up to $18,000 up to 60% of the cost of an IIA upgrade
if it is mandated by the >> and sewer >> and connection. Not sewer, >> not sewer Betterment, but sewer um connection your property to the uh lateral at the street. right now that tax credit you don't get it if you don't
have enough income to be paying significant taxes and you've got six years total to get enough expense enough tax liability to garner that credit but it can pay for close to half of an IIA uh but it's nonrefundable
making it refundable which is the proposal John actually he went with Steve Rafferty to to Beacon Hill to testify for it and Dave uh Vieiraa sponsored the bill so but he's kind of alone wolf right now uh pushing this thing. We need to get the rest of the
Cape delegation on. So, this is outreach to the public and then lean on your legislators and you know the select board has endorsed it. U associations like West Felmouth Village, organizations like Salt Pond area bird sanctuaries all sent letters endorsing
this but it hasn't happened as John said. So, moving on. um best available technology and IIA performance and evaluation. This is a ongoing recent effort by the board of health to
look at how are these things doing there. There's close to 3,000 IAS on the Cape something like I think George 300 in Falmouth maybe more closer to four uh IAS in Felmouth. Yeah. And you know the the performance monitoring has been
lacks uh as they reviewing some of the data it's coming up with oh boy you know they're not doing that well or some are doing great. So that's an ongoing concern as to as we require IAS how are they doing and that's a topic that we'll be talking about in another agenda item
if we get to it. Uh you're in diverging projects monitoring that >> diverging is a person >> diverting devil got a hold of it and flipped it around. >> I just noticed it while I was standing here looking at it. I was diverging
while I was watching it. >> Diverging. Diverging. Um you know, whatever we want to call it. It's an active town project that has some funding. Um I have Masttec on the agenda schedule. They've committed to coming in September 2nd, either the second or the
fifth. The ne I think it's the fifth, the next the first meeting in September that's on our schedule to talk about that. They'll also talk about some other things, but that's an important one to see, okay, where are we, what's happening. Um monitoring the PRB project
and how that's effective and see if there's other places we can do this one way or another. uh limited application because of the space requirements and the land access. Grant opportunities is important, but who's going to do that if we don't have consultant funds to seek
these things out and do the very difficult application process? Um same thing with the shellfish projects. you know there is consultant time that has been advising that project those projects uh working with the town uh
marine and environmental uh department Chuck Martinsson so who's going to do that it's a priority I think for this committee because it's part of improving water quality and you know continuing being aware of and what are other towns
doing interface share ideas share regulations what's good, what's bad, that other folks are doing that maybe we're not and provide the best information we can to maybe help them along. Together we can make more progress. Go ahead. >> Can I say something negative about
number nine? >> Sure. >> Um, it's a distraction. I I have no problems if anybody wants to give us free money. Um, but I think that the town and the media and members of the
committee can be distracted. It it can take up more of our time and attention than is proportional to the amount of money involved >> or as as George pointed out, we're talking about a billion dollars here. Mhm.
>> You get a couple hundred thousand to do some cute little thing and that does 5% of some pond. It's not proportional to be thinking about how to cut down the billion dollars. >> If if there is um
>> I'm not saying not to do it. I'm just don't want people I want people to keep the the return on investment in mind. >> Understood. Um but look at there might suddenly pop up an opportunity
for massive grants 100 million and if we don't watch form and know how to apply for them we don't have a crack at it right now there's a lot of lobbying by the mass federal congressional delegation to try and get
massive federal funds for haver to fix their sewer problem and that's a big topic uh but you know if they're successful, and I think it's a hell of a long shot to get, you know, 50 million or I think they're talking 80 to 100
million to solve the long-term problems that they have with their wastewater. So, expand the horizon. There might be a bigger grant and if we're not watching for it and applying for it, that can make a bigger financial impact. So,
anyway, go any other comments from the board. I think I I do think it's worth having some effort for grants because even the baseline data collection that you mentioned, we have the equipment, but we don't have the next level of funding to take it forward, which is
critical. If we don't have a baseline, how can we tell if we're successful in implementing absolutely agree our water quality projects? >> Yeah, I think you know Ken's a big proponent of this and rightfully so that you know it it read me probably should be part of the overall project budget.
the monitoring expense whether it's a percentage or a estimated dollar amount but if there's no funds for from any source it won't happen right >> there go ahead Ken >> you know we can approach this as just
the town of Felmouth or this monitoring issue or we could try because everyone you know throughout the Cape faces this problem try to develop some kind of consortium I I always think about Chesapeake Bay, you know,
multiple states and so forth involved. Uh some kind of consortium where we've got APCC, Buzzard's Bay Coalition, uh Center for Coastal Studies. I have talked to Maria an Ranfala about could
we, you know, join forces and lobby for some uh statewide funding to support some kind of uh initiative on monitoring. So I I think maybe that's a I see thumbs up. So I'm glad about that.
George. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, getting more towns and and associations involved in the effort >> gives you a better chance of success that every all the politicians love regionalization ideas. And you know, we not just the Cape, but Martha's Vineyard
and Nantucket to a large extent have the exact same problems. Towns like Weham just over the bridge, they've got a massive problem coming at them. So the more we know what they're doing, the more we share what we're doing and try to get a a consensus and a joint effort
to get after some funding, whether it's state, federal, or a combination thereof or some charitable grant program. Um, yeah, I think it's important. So any other comments from the board? Well, along the lines of the regional
um uh efforts, I think that's where uh this question of the uh mandate for affordable housing versus the uh
you know impacts on uh water quality needs to be addressed because again If we're just a lone voice in Felmouth, I don't think we have nearly the power we would if there were 15 towns and who knows how many
other towns not on the Cape that are affected. Uh we're advocating for for some sanity with respect to how we address affordable housing and still maintain uh environmental quality. U so
I don't necessarily have the answer to that, but I think it ought to go somewhere in this list. I think it could easily be number 12 on the list to figure out how to mediate or reduce conflict between housing needs and resource quality. I mean because
>> this is a first cut document for what should what can and should be and I think that's a great idea. Yeah. >> Yeah. I would think >> you'll be the worthy scribe. >> Yeah. Yeah. We'll add we'll add more. I think it's captured on your net your functional pathways because we have
these right almost groupings you know you have collaboration y that talks about you know these issues in my mind there should be a fourth one it's the financial aspect of this that incorporates tax credits the fairness issues all the other things that are related to how do we pay for this so I
think we have to start breaking out into I don't know subcommittee groups to be legal um by the town laws to start tackling these projects is meeting every other week and having a speaker and discussing it. I don't know if that's going to get us there. I think we have to take it to the next level.
>> Yeah. I I think, you know, there's there's of several issues that I plan on discussing with the town attorney because when she did her education program on um open meeting law month or two ago, uh you know, was something that
we broached, but I don't think there I didn't feel we had a definitive answer of how can we do working group subcommittee. She seemed to be pretty negative on the concept, but you know, it's something to explore. Can we do that? You you can't write a letter by
committee and do it in any sensible length of time. You can't detail out a project like this in any sensible length of time without a smaller group drafting something and then presenting it and getting final approval. So, uh I I think it's a great
point. Um, lots to do uh in this committee as we go forward because the environment is changing. Uh, >> yes, sir. >> Does anybody in this has anyone in this room ever seen a plan for Falmouth housing that doesn't involve that that
states final numbers that doesn't rely on continuous growth into the future? It doesn't go to infinity. Well, you you know that uh 40b mandates 10%. >> But where you know that includes that
>> but of course if you're building three marker rates every time 10% of the total housing stock. >> Yeah. But is is the total ever specified? >> Well given buildout that admitting that there's a builtout state >> and what 10% of that would look like and
creating a stable system. Well, you're assuming there's a cap on the population of Fmouth, which there isn't. >> That's what I'm getting at. >> Okay. >> In practicality, there is because we have limited resources of gold, roads, water, >> uh, sewer, and all that. There is a a
bill pending, and I'm not sure where it is. I've reached out to Dylan Fernandez, his uh, district director, to dig into this. It's called Mass Winds Act and it will greatly reduce and restrict the ability of a town to
change housing plans that are proposed based on anything that is offsite. So if you want to do a big development on, you know, Sandwich Road, you can only look at the immediate environment, not the impact on the Kunameset River and what
it's going to do as it flows out into the imperative bait. So if that passes and I guess it's got a lot of support from um people that I don't quite understand their mindset, but it's in direct conflict with our efforts to clean this up. So that's
that's a real sticking point and I'm afraid it's a battle we may not win, but at least we got a fight. >> Fernandez is sponsoring this. >> Who's sponsoring it? >> Yeah. Did you say Dylan Fernandez is >> No, no, no. wife reached out to Dylan's >> district director who introduced herself
to me at the outfall meeting. >> Yeah. >> And I said, "Hey, help us out on this. Where is this? What is it all about?" But it's a damn scary bill. >> Yes. >> It's the baby version of exactly what happened to the Federal Endangered
Species Act in the last six weeks. >> You know, housing trumps all and right now it does if it's a 40B. But this is so far reaching that there is a lot of fear among regulatory. >> Felmouth planning board's considering uh measures changes to bylaws that would
yep increase radically density. >> Yeah. But you know there is there is >> and there's certainly a need for affordable housing. It's just there's other ways to do it. You >> well there's a there's a cap to what the h the Falmouth infrastructure can support. Um, and and it's not just
sewers, but it's, you know, potable water and everything else. But there it's a real problem and one that, you know, I think we need to be mindful of and and talking about and seeing what action we can help to coordinate on this type of thing. Anything else on this from the board? Anybody from the
audience want to make a comment on it? >> Yes, sir. Dr. >> George, thank you for bringing this up. >> Wait, you're bringing your own. ran out of ink so I couldn't write down my notes. >> Um the IIA triggers thing.
>> Yep. >> The last meeting of the uh board of health on Monday, we beat ourselves up for more than two hours about this. And so a and my
we're going to try to just start again to rewrite modify the plan of what's going to trigger IAS but there's incredible disputes about this and I think getting
agreement is going to be hugely difficult. But I think the problem is the last time we did this, we said it's too hard to write a rule for things other than
more flow a new building which is more flow. Um about the only thing we did was exclude the title five Massachusetts regulation that says if a house was built
uh before 1995 I think they could do all the modifications they want and it's not considered they could tear down and rebuild and it's not considered new construction. So we eliminated anyway you're anybody who wants to help us
think about this please do because we don't know what to do and there's so much no matter what you do there's 12 reasons that that shouldn't apply to a particular house. So that as I the last
time we said we're gonna have to do this at a case-byase basis for these kinds of situations because we don't know how to write a rule. And I've since learned that that's what Congress does to pass bills. They write very vague laws
because that way everybody can con can claim they got what they wanted. And that's what the Supreme Court spends a huge amount of well back when we had overturning um trying to sort out what does a law mean and that it's case law
not the law which is almost all of what's important about laws and regulations. So please make this an explicit part of your uh thing. I think these are great ideas. Um, >> George, you should know that when Ed and
I started working on it, it's it's really sort of a shopping list and partly a wish list. >> Yes. >> But yeah, we're we're we're asking for more ideas as we just came up with number 12 conflict between housing committee and resource depletion. >> My high school yearbook under my picture
says there's too many people. It doesn't say this exactly and we're screwed if we don't do something about it. So, I encourage you never to think about this because we can't do anything about it as a town of Felmouth and it'll just cause us to throw up our arms and say it's all
over. We're done. >> Sorry, Steve. I I think it's hopeless and the best thing to do. Ben Franklin or somebody said there's a town time to look and a time to wink. I think on this one we must just wink. >> Um, >> you're you're giving up you're giving up
on the fairness idea. No, I'm giving up on there are too many people. >> It's the number of kidneys is the problem. Whether they diverge or divert. >> So, we should limit >> kids. We all only have one, we'll be better off.
>> I think that's we we've only got a half hour left today. >> And you know, we're not going to finish this agenda by any stretch, >> right? So, >> um, let me Well, the shellfish project's obviously something near and dear to my
heart. We're going to stay on top of that because we know it works. Um, and there's tremendous potential for conflict there in a bunch of different modalities. But I I think number 11, and then this gets back to some of the functional pathways that that we brought
in later. Um, we're not trying to reinvent the wheel here. Quite often it turns out that some group of people two or three towns away or somebody in the other side of the bay app finds out what works for them. So, I think it's very important that we sort
of keep our ears to the ground and pay a lot of attention to what's happening and not just the things that are working, but the things that don't work, right? Why would we want to try that? Because three other towns have tried it. It doesn't work. So anyway, um do you want me to try Steve?
>> Um just quickly because uh we have an audience member. Go ahead and last time for the committee. >> Well, since Thompson to the shellfish, Kristen presented on at least one of these estuaries. >> Yeah. >> The proposed shellfish beds,
>> right? >> And some of them are proposed, right? They're not all existing. Um, is there any concern that those will not be able to that any of those will not be able to be implemented?
>> Yes, there's there's um certain people in town don't want to hear this, but there's a lot of push back by other users of the water course. Um, >> you answered the question. >> Yeah. So, this is tentative. Um, uh,
Chuck Martinson can address this in much greater detail than I can, but right now I think he's talking for the foreseeable future, and we're talking years out, maybe 30% or 35% actual buildout of shellfish farms
compared to what's in the big master plan, which would be over 100 acres. Um, but >> Tom, how many shellfish per acre, how many actual oysters per acre does it work out to be? >> Well, it depends on what size they're at
at at maturity. Um, let me think. Um, >> how many lemons do you need? >> Count the lemons. I I I realize this is the annual meeting shirt. I didn't show it to you yet.
I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm moderating a panel for the WOI Bay annual meeting. Maggie kept poking me with this sharp thing. Anyway, it's about aquaculture and how may be found with her approaching it. But anyway, um
how many oysters? Um each grower, um the past few years have been really good. And if growers have produced 350 to a half million oysters at harvest, that's at their largest size. Of course,
they start out smaller. Um and it only takes about 18 months for them to reach that size. So, it's it's hard for me to say, but I know that an acre of oysters sequesters
>> um >> well, I 20 26 >> I don't want to get into the details specific items too far away now. We won't get even past I know we'll keep going with this. >> Um and I do want to move forward. Oh, just uh Alan, quick point. >> Just a quick point with regard to
priorities in short term and long term >> as as as we all know as Amy described that they that she plans or the town plans to go to town meeting in Springtown meeting with requests for a large sum of money to keep the keep the outfall project moving. And so in terms
of messaging and you know getting you know more than the usual subjects aware of this and that there's been an expenditure and there's a reason for this expenditure and it's a you know everything else hinges on this. That's something that I
think we should identify very quickly what our role is what DPW's role is and more effectively reach out than beyond the the newspaper and FCTV. We certainly found that in our the solid waste advisory committee that go into using
the senior center and their messaging program etc etc. >> Yeah. I I I think you know you had mentioned to me when we first met how effective some of your u vehicles for getting the message out and if if you can put those together in a little bullet list >> right
>> for consideration you know this isn't this is the first but not the last time we visit this and I think you know I'd ask the committee to think about it maybe put some things in order of priority to your estimation and we'll talk about it again uh Hilda you wanted to speak so go ahead I'm going to give you the floor
>> you've been very patient thank Thank you. >> You get patient when you get old. >> You have to be patient. >> Should be less patient. You have less time. >> Regarding the housing, I would suggest that we look into your diversion or at
least we remove the nutrients before they get in the wastewater and make that part of why we can solve the housing problem so that we don't pollute anymore. And that's what we are working on extensively over the whole Cape. And we working on it with on state level
that they start seeing that like you're in diversion is a major uh solution to the problem of housing and as well as the cost of course of dealing with the waste >> stopping polluting stop polluting in the
first place but I don't hear it often enough that this is actually a solution. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else quick from the uh audience? Okay. Um, thanks Tom for putting up with this and patiently. >> Can can I jump on the function? >> Oh, okay.
>> Just real real quickly. >> All right. >> Um, I was trying to figure out different ways we'd approach these the objective parts of the list, the objectives. And we have because we represent I think
without patting ourselves on the back a tremendous accumulated bit of knowledge about the way things work in these different fields. And I think we have a real serious um responsibility to reach out to other people in the community in a bunch of
different ways. I point out here innovative approaches. I think we need to be paying attention to when things show up. Of course, right dayto day, we need to be riding her on the watershed plans. And if we see an issue showing up there, we need to speak up. But also this this category here of long-term and
big picture viewpoints, this plays back to some of the things we were already talking about today. We have an incredible responsibility. As George has pointed out a couple times, and I'm like I'm weird like you. I bring this up. I brought it up twice already this week when I was talking to somebody. I said,
"Forget 40,000 for an IIA. Over the next 5 years, it's going to be 50,000." >> 80. >> I've seen 82,000 from the state. From the state, the guys that know, but let's middle of the road. 50,000. We know it's
going to be at least 8,000 residents. So that's just for nitrogen reducing technology is $400 million just for that part of the program. And I've been bringing it up with people
again and again. They look at me like, "Where'd that come from? Why would you think that's going to happen?" And I said, "You need to be paying attention." So this big picture thing we need to be thinking about. Um we've got a wide group of audiences available to us starting with the select board but town
management and the different departments. Um, we've already talked already about education and outreach sorts of things we can do, but this collaboration is issue which I think Allan brought up a few minutes ago about six or eight years ago, we had a joint
meeting with planning board Paul I don't know were you we had at Felmouth Academy we we had about five different regulatory and advisory boards and panel all together in a room for several hours I think on a Saturday morning if I remember correctly. We haven't done anything like that since then. And it's
so important for us to at least to try to move to the same sheet of music. We we've done this with board of health in a couple of cases and it really pays off and we bring in the housing issues, the zoning issues and the resource
degradation issues that we're so concerned with. Um but there's strength in numbers and we've already mentioned collaborating with other towns on the Cape. Our problems are not peculiar to Falmouth
to get back to Georgia wherever we're fighting kidneys, right? We we we've got people all over the place that are in trouble. So we need to reach out to the county and state agencies maybe more formally uh and also environmental advocacy groups. And one thing that I
didn't throw in here was timeliness. We need to have an annual calendar with the town meetings and other things plugged in so we know when things are coming up. And we know that four weeks, six weeks prior to the town meeting, we've got to be getting to the precinct meetings and
stuff and and singing our songs, you know, and trying to get people on board. I I'll let George I'm done. You can try to code us. >> Okay. >> All right. LA last comment on this item. >> Please have some kind of public calendar
of the watershed plans and what the timelines and deadlines are. I've got an old slide from somewhere about a timeline. I have no idea if it's accurate anymore, but I don't know it and nobody I know knows it except maybe the six of you.
>> John has a very nice calendar that John has the best timeline I've seen. I think it should be expanded. I I think I think what Okay, >> we have to use the microphones, >> guys. Everybody, we have to use microphones if we're going to speak. And
I think Kristen mentioned that the timeline for submission of the watershed plans is under discussion and I think as soon as that's available, Kristen and Amy will be letting us know and using this as an initial vehicle to
get that message out. So, great point, George. Um, I I think we've beat this one up pretty good. This this will come up again maybe at the next meeting. Um, okay. Now, >> part part of this brings up um I I don't think we're going to get to the RME
tonight, Tom. >> That was going to be my next question. Do you? >> No, we'll never get there. It's too big an issue. There's too many details to not give it due >> diligence. Okay. So, I'm going to >> You can turn it off. >> I'm done. >> Okay. Can I leave? The one thing I do
want to bring up couple of more quick ones is water quality members liaons to various committees. Um John Waterberry after he left board of health and return to this board liazed with board of
health he went to most of the meetings and would represent our information and gather what is the board of health working on need a volunteer that's going to do that. John, thank you. you know, the the schedule's posted. Um they they meet and they've
got some really really big issues, but Okay, that that's great. Thank you, John. Uh freshwater advisory, Tom, you've been doing that. >> I'm still doing that and I'm >> Okay, great. >> willing to do that. Same thing with the shellfish. >> Okay.
>> Committee. Um >> any other committee liaison that we need? Those were just a couple that I uh thought of off the top of my head. I I don't think we >> do. Do you want a formal uh designation to stay involved with zoning planning
issues? >> Yeah. I just I just think about my what I can actually do. I mean, I could not go to every single planning board, >> right? Yeah. I mean, I could go to the occasional one, >> but I'm just, >> you know, I I I think what what what is important is to look at what's on their
agendas and say, "Oh, this is one I want us here, >> right? >> And this is stuff that nah, forget about it." So, you know, if you would volunteer to just monitor, >> I guess I'm volunteering. >> Okay, great. Um, >> when available. >> Yeah. And you know, it's some of their
meetings are off on tangents that why bother because it's not relevant to our issues, but I think it's important to just keep an eye on what's coming up. Uh that that's a good one that I hadn't thought of. Um planning, Ken, any other committees? I don't think
historically we've had anybody uh involved with Con. Um, I know you've served on it, Peter, but had there ever been a liaison with this committee to concom I don't think so. >> I I don't recall. >> Yeah. So, you know, if we come up with
any other committee that somebody thinks it's appropriate for us to keep track of and and lies with um we can pick that up another time, but you know, these are some very important ones. I think probably the toughest and most involved is the board of health because as George
said, they are looking for help to eat this monster of IIA requirements and how you implement and enforce and monitor that uh performance of an IIA. The whole
thing that gets into the RME and that that takes care of this uh that's number four. Number five was uh future agenda suggestions. And right now uh where did I put that page?
Yeah, I think the uh one thing we want to get on an agenda is what is this Mass Winds Act? It's bill number 5386. Um, I reached out to, as I said, Dylan's
district coordinator or director last on Friday, I believe. Haven't heard back. U, I'll do the same with Dave Vieira and see if he can update us on it. I do have currently claim to the Nitro people
coming in on August 19th to tell us where they're at as far as capacity permitting. Um Moren Thomas who was uh one of their key people said you know they're having trouble getting D to approve their
technology to the general use level and what D requires. So they'll talk about that and so she and John Smith the founder and CEO I guess will be here on August 19th. >> Can they include cost information?
>> Um I'm sure they'll have some ideas. you know, they they they now have, she said, 300 systems installed in Massachusetts. So, I think that's a damn good question, but they will be here. Uh, let me just go through a couple more, Maggie, and then I'll call out >> about the clean question about the clean tubes.
>> Okay. You want to use the mic, please? >> Sure. >> Very briefly. Um, I talked to Moren Thomas, Maggie McGau, uh, Wquite. Um, several months ago about phosphorus removal, uh,
she was saying that they were in the process of, you know, having the engineering team develop the phosphorus removal technology and incorporate it. And so it would be fantastic if you
could add to your list of questions for whoever is going to speak, you know, what is the status of phosphorus removal on the clean two systems. >> Great point. I hope you'll be able to make that meeting. >> I plan to be. >> So, you know, this is why I'm I'm trying to pick if there's something like a a
business that we'd like to tell us what's going on to reach out to them and see, okay, here's our schedule tenative for meetings. when can you come and are you willing to come? So, so far they they've been very interested in coming. Um
I think I mentioned Masttec will be coming in on uh September 2nd or the 5th. I forget which is that first Wednesday, but they are going to come in and talk about specifically where that shoe pond project where they put a bunch of IAS in and how that's
going and what they're seeing as far as uh environmental improvements and also very importantly what's going on with the urine diversion Felmouth project that's got some state funding, some town funding and I think some grant funding from the to okay where are we with
getting people to participate and kick that thing off and he put me on for September 2nd. I should have some exciting news. So anxious to hear what that might be. So any other ideas that the committee may have going forward, shoot me an email just as an
individual one to one. Don't do copy all and um try and get it to happen. Tom, go ahead. >> Let me try to move you back on the spot as the new chairman. And I know you're looking for initiatives. Um, as you know, this idea of having a a joint meeting
and I wondered if you'd want to go forward and contact the chairman of several of these boards and see if there's any interest. I know the board of health is, you know, been interested, but if we could get some of these other boards in town, we might want to figure
out some members of the select board, too, because I know they participated before. Yep. >> Um anyway, just a thought if you want to take that on and >> you know I I I don't want to take it on. I hate to tell you how many hours I'm putting in on this now, but if somebody wants to volunteer to put together a
list of committees or associations or anybody that might make sense to participate in a forum or whatever we want to call it, >> yeah, >> do it. And you know I this has become a a a monster on my back uh as we transition into our role with our
limitations and also you know I'm trying to plan further ahead and utilize people's time effectively especially presenters I plan on wherever possible they will be a first on the agenda not pushed to the last and pressed for time. Um, so yeah, any other ideas for topics
we want to hit? Go. I'll come to you Earl, but Steve first. >> And just a word of caution. Obviously, it's always good to inter talk to everybody and collaborate and so on, but I think it's also important that we get our own act together and focused on
something and what we think is the way we want to go on it before we spread out or else you just have a giant bull session. >> Yep. that I thank you for that because I I was thinking along the same lines. Come on up up Earl so that we keep things moving. >> If I can go ahead.
>> When the time comes I I agree with what you your suggestion right there that we need to have your act. When the time comes I'll be happy to help try work to try to coordinate that. >> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Earl. >> Uh yeah, Earl Barnhard Green Center. I think you should have a GHD guy come
here or woman or whoever is making the plans for these watersheds. We in the old days years ago, the GHD would come to every one of these meetings and they would say, "Well, you should do this. You should do that. We've looked at this. We've looked at that." And you could ask them questions. We haven't
seen a GHD person in this meeting for 5 years. And the GHD person who's helping plan the watersheds, you never see her. She does not come here. We have no way to talk to her. Like Amy Lo will say repeatedly in public, we must use sewers
in this watershed. we must use sewers in this area. And we have no way to uh reply to that. We our numbers show that you don't have to use sewers in some of these wersheds. You could do it other ways, cheaper, but there's no way for us to to uh influence the planning of these
wersheds unless we talk to this uh GHD advisor and ask them very specific questions. >> Good good suggestion to have them come in and talk about the planning process and the engineering that they're undergoing. So, I'll certainly see if that makes some sense. I I do plan on
meeting with Amy hopefully next week when she's back from vacation to uh to talk about that list of objectives and goals and and how she would interface uh going forward with the committee and what ideas she has of things she thinks we should prioritize. So, and that can
be part of it. So, good thought Earl. Thank you. Um all right. Um that that's it on number five. We've got 10 minutes left. I I move uh or entertain a motion to table the RME
draft. So move second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> We're all >> That was easy. >> I I think we we've kicked that can down the road for months and months um and not gotten to it. And in your information for this meeting, there was
uh the draft that John and George Hoyfelder had worked on years ago for Oyster Pond. It's pretty detailed. I I spent an hour and a half while I was waiting for the dentist this this morning going through it line by line. >> Well, that sounds like double pain.
>> Yeah. Well, it wasn't too bad. It was It was a emergency appointment to see what they think they can do, but uh Board of Health started talking about it at their meeting two weeks ago. Um and I came in a little late to the meeting, but I
wanted to hear what they had. And you could tell right away they're bogging down into line by line percentage and figures. It's a a good starting document. It has been submitted to the select board with
a cover letter back on the 13th of July for their consideration to endorse and send on to D. Um they have it tenatively on their agenda later this summer. We did put a timeline in of October 1st for
a response from D on the need for an RME. So that is coming, but I think I ask the committee members take some time, go through that thing, make some notes so we when we do get to it, hopefully next meeting we can have a
productive discussion. It's it's a lot for me anyway. Um, we're we're about to the limit of what we can do. Uh, I've got a couple of brief things that I haven't been able to get to because of time press.
>> The minutes the minutes is the only substantive thing left. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. >> Do the minutes in case any of us have to leave. >> Right. Yes. All right. The minutes um have been sent to you all. Um, I made one minor change to what Tom had
sent me initially and and that was what was transmitted to you. >> They be accepted as written. >> I second. >> Okay. Any discussion, questions? Okay. Um, motion and seconded. Those in favor? I >> Okay. Um, minutes are accepted. Uh, I'm
I'm going to be extremely brief on and nobody caught the fact that I had two number sixes in the agenda. He'll Hilda quickly. You got something? >> Yeah. About the minutes. >> Oh, okay. Come on up. Come on up. >> The six is
>> while while Hilda's coming up, I'm going to say >> um there was the outall information meeting uh last Wednesday and you know it was good. It was uh a lot of good questions. A lot of scientists folks
were impressed with the information and the detailed studies that people did. uh the work that John and Amy and I know Kristen have done on the permitting GHD also where we are and where the plans are going forward. So it was a a big attempt to reach the public.
Unfortunately, the public's not super interested. >> No, you know, it's July. >> Go ahead, Hilda. >> Hilda, precinct 8. Um in the minutes, I've noticed over the years, we never seem to see the people that actually speak up from the public. There's no
notification who was there, who spoke, who said what. So, who would ever know what inputs you got from the public if it's never in the minutes? >> They're typically in there up and will >> No, Hilda's right. >> Yeah.
>> There's a party line here. >> The minutes. >> Excuse me, Steve. >> Uh, the attendees are always at the top of the minutes. who was there of you know the regular attendees whether it's green center Mr. Hanley, uh, Maggie, uh,
the press. So, we do list who's here and and if is there a I think that we try to get any substantive comments. The minutes were something again that Kristen was doing as part of her administrative support to this committee. We've lost that. So, now
we're kind of struggling. Tom has graciously been coerced and accepted doing the minutes for a while, but we've got to come up with a better way to make it more concise. So, your point is well taken. I hear what you're saying. >> It has been for a long time as far as I
know that we don't see notes taken about the people that speak up. >> Okay. I I take that as a valid criticism. And you know, I'm I'm trying to make things more efficient, more open, and welcoming to public in input
as we go forward. And to satisfy the legalities, I needed to spend some time with the town attorney about making sure we're in full compliance with disseminating information under the open meeting law, and to whom, at what point in the process, and also to make sure the agendas are out. Go ahead, Steve.
>> Thank you. >> I have a suggestion for you. You might even make money from it. Right. Make a deal with the enterprise and you don't need need to make a deal with FCTV. Their stuff is public. You let Chat GPT watch the meetings of several
committees, not just this one on FCTV and write up the minutes. You edit them and then you write a column in the enterprise of the real minutes of committee X. >> Now, I have to tell you, we already working 24 hours a day on this.
>> We work full-time on this already. So, I don't think I'm going to add anything to it, >> but maybe you could. >> A friend that would do it. >> Maybe you could do it. >> Yeah. Okay. And you know, with all due respect to the enterprise, >> oh, >> Katie does a great job. Thank you,
Katie. >> Ears are on fire. And while again good >> um >> ju just quickly back to other things that have been going on out there. Uh just make sure everybody is aware >> the DEI for the outfall was submitted uh and published in the environmental
monitor at 5:00 the night of our last meeting. So that kicks off a timeline for public comment on the draft environmental impact report. And comments need to be submitted through the state portal, which isn't the easiest thing to use, but it's the
only way to do it. Um, either by mail or electronically, by uh August 21st. So, they put a six week horizon for public comment. Usually, it's four weeks. I've seen eight. I've never seen six. Because it's a big project, I think they let's
do six weeks. So, good. But anyone from the public that wants to comment on the outfall, that's the way to do it officially. Um lastly, and then I'll shut up and go for adjournment, but the um the board of health did discuss too
at their meeting on the 13th, the um RME letter with the attached draft document. uh they discussed it, they voted and did subsequently send a week later an
endorsement of that to the select board. So water quality has gone on record and the select board is going to consider it. Uh and board of health said, "Hey, we want this to we agree with water quality." So I think that's important.
We need to work with these boards and understand each other's needs and work together. Um, I will now entertain a motion to just one one water quality announcement. Sure. Just really briefly. Uh, I don't know if you were all aware, and if you're not, I can send you the article,
but in this past Saturday's New York Times, >> yes. >> There was a feature article on the Falmouth based old ladies against underwear, including >> she just left. Okay. including in Maggie when Maggie's a part of including a photo, you know, a photo a large
photograph top of the fold on page one. >> Yeah. >> And uh just a phenomenal effort of a part of water quality that I'm very near and dear to my heart. Trash, debris, and litter >> and they're it's an amazing group. You know, it's it's one of those little things that Steve mentioned earlier that
makes a difference, but it doesn't impact the hundreds of millions we got to spend. But damn, it's good to see people getting out there and doing something about it. So, um, where were we? We were going to >> I'll move adjournment. >> Yeah, I think that's a good thing.
Second. Okay. All those in favor of adjourning. Thank you so much, everybody.