So we have the May 26th meeting of the conservation commission. Will stand with the flag, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. >> This meeting is being recorded. Get my good side. >> Yep. >> All right. Uh first we have Nature Conservancy Daniel Gulard RDA coastal survey for soil and shellfish
observation east and west branch of the west river. >> Oh uh good evening gentlemen. Um so this um survey is a USDA natural resource conservation service. They do these surveys all over the country um on land
and underwater. So, if anyone's familiar with wet soil survey, every time you put a septic system in, the permeability and drainage characteristics of the soil were probably mapped by NRCS. Um, and they also do this underwater to um establish site suitability for
construction, for aquaculture sighting, for um other resilience projects to evaluate what kind of erosion you're going to experience um and for restoration of salt marsh, oyster reefs, and seagrass. Um, so this I think is a
great opportunity for Westport. Uh, we had to write a lengthy letter of justification because in 2024 these guys went out to 60 locations nationwide and thus far in 2026 they've gone out to three because of budget cuts and um some
squeezing on USDA. So, we wrote a letter of justification highlighting all the things that are going on in West with Mass Aragon coming out to look at salt marsh with aquaculture being a potentially expanding um you know industry in the town and the oyster
restoration and eelgrass restoration and its tie into the bay scolop industry. And uh they came back and said that they would send a special projects team up from Maryland. So, um the special projects team comes out and they bring their own equipment, their own pontoon
boats and their own barges. Um that's really um more like an airboat with a propeller on the back and they supply all their equipment and they go out and do this survey in the Westport River system and then they provide all the data back and publicly on their website
so that the entire sub subtitle waters of the Westport River system will be mapped. um in addition to the salt marshes which I think will provide the town with a lot of valuable data going forward as the town looks to plan for climate resilience um and as we look to
expand restoration projects in salt marsh and oysters and other things that will be beneficial for the town. So the the survey is um conducted by soil scientists. NRCS is really the federal
lead on soil conservation and soil science under USDA. So these guys really know what they're doing when it comes to soil sampling and there's really low impact on the environment. They use small diameter cores. Um they plunge down into the subsurface sediments. They
pull out a core. They examine that core and they plunge it back down in. And the same thing on the salt marsh. They don't leave holes in the salt marsh. They take that core. They examine it, they document their findings, and then they replace that core plug into the marsh. So, um, really low impact. Um, Chris was
was kind enough to provide us with some points of contact, and we talked with, uh, DCR over at State Beach and Mr. McGee, and he gave us clearance to access that marsh over there. Um, as long as we avoid a couple of osprey
nests. Um, I also personally talked on the phone with Ross Moran who gave us uh access to any of the Westport Conservation Land Trust fringing marshes that we would need to access to conduct the survey and uh letters were sent to
the private fringing marsh um in the East Branch and West Branch of the Westport River. So, we've tried to sort of cover our bases here and make sure that um we're not going to have a bunch of people calling Chris when they
see a little barge out there fringing salt marsh um screaming. So, I think everybody's well informed at this point. Um and I'm here tonight to uh request sort of a determination of applicability as this falls under the Wetland Protection Act as a sort of a
preparation for pending plans. um and to uh answer any questions you might have. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Dan. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Chairman, this is the Nature Conservancy. Uh as Dan mentioned, with the NRCS involvement, this is Westport
River in the East and West branches. This is a request of determination of applicability filed. Report date is May 22nd, 2026. The Nature Conservancy with the Natural Resource Conservation Services will conduct soil transexs across the
subtitle in fringe marsh within the east and west branches. Three to five observation points will be collected using 2-in sampling or soil morph morphology and field chemistry conducted for each sample taken. Sediment samples will be retained for further lab
analysis. Or holes will be filled after each testing. This work will support future ecological restoration and community resilience projects. The activity does fall under a minor exemption activities. However, the hearing will provide a formal acceptance
to allow the work uh under the wetland protection act's jurisdiction. So, uh recommendations for the board tonight. Uh the Westport Conservation should issue a negative box 2 determination and allow the sediment sampling to be conducted in the Westport Rivers. That
is all, Mr. Chairman, >> any have any questions or comments? >> Dan, is your presentation from the um the watershed Alliance is that is that posted on the Watershed Alliance website or >> it's provided to them? I'm not sure if they posted it on there or not.
>> All right. Well, I mean, does it matter? Of course, they do that. >> Yeah. >> Put the presentations up. >> We have a huge audience at home that watches these meetings. So, >> no. And I think you know that an expanded version of that presentation was given at the annual meeting over at
the AOX club and I think that one is definitely on their site. >> Yeah. All right. I would just encourage people to look up that u that talk and and watch it just to kind of understand what your mission is. It was really good presentation. >> Absolutely.
>> Just congratulations. Thank you for doing it. >> Yeah. Thanks. You have a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second. All right, that was JB Jason. All in favor? >> All right, >> you're all set, sir. Thank you very much. Good luck. >> Thanks, Dan.
>> Thank you, Rick. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Dan. >> Enjoy the >> Wait, we need to put him on the hot seat. >> Told you. So, get out of here. Don't talk. >> All right. David Petty, notice in 10 144 Cherry Web
Lane. construct, addition, and replace empty tank in the flood zone. >> Mr. Chairman, um I thought there would be a representative here, so caught off guard, but um David Petty, uh we can't really open the hearing, Mr. Chairman, because we don't have the green cards, but the applicant is filing to construct
a garage on the former Mora property. Dave Mora sold it after he obtained the uh final order conditions for his violation on the property. And now this gentleman is proposing a garage with a room above. So the design did not
incorporate having to be 2 feet above the coastal dune that exists on the property. Nor did the engineer know that there were other violations and another order of condition. So I would suggest a continuance to June 23rd 26. >> Motion to continue.
>> Second motion from Jake, second from Jason. All in favor? All right, let's Jonathan Levy notice in 1048 B drift road construct dock and perform water activities. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Levy as well after my
um report at the NAS meeting they have requested for a continuence to July uh so that all parties can be present. I don't know what his team encompasses, but this uh will be extended to continue
rather to July 7th, 2026. >> We need a motion to continue to 7726. >> To continue second, >> Jake and Kevin, all in favor? >> All right, that's unanimous. >> Mass DCR notice intent. John Reed Road SE 82822
proposed widening of beach access road with uh Coastal Barry Beach. Mass DCR did not uh have a plan available for this meeting. They have requested a continuence to June 9th. >> A motion to continue to June 9th to 26.
>> So move second. >> Second. >> Second. Jason. >> All in favor? >> I'm abstaining. >> One obstension. All right. Other business. Certificate of compliance. R Turner TR7 SE8268244
Old Hover Road. >> Mr. Chairman, um I got a report here, but I'm recommending again that we push this off a couple weeks, but Rebecca Turner, 44 Old Harbor Road. This is certificate compliance with file number SE802682.
Um the report dated is May 22nd, 26. The applicant is filed to finalize the issuance of a certificate compliance for file number SC802682. The project was a single family home constructed within the riverfront area with special conditions to install a split rail fence around the edge of the
disturbance at the rear of the home. And in addition, landscaped areas have just been seated and starting to establish. So, I recommend the board that we postpone action until June 9th, 2026 uh to allow the seat to establish a
little more and um I I really didn't get out to take a site visit. So, that as well. So, continue this request for COC till June 9th. >> Need a motion to continue. >> Make a motion continue to June 9th. >> Second.
>> Jason and Jake, all in favor? >> All right. Please extension Westlook Farm Do Association 33 Westlook Farm Lane SC82444. This is Westlook Lane, Mr. Chairman. And this has been in litigation for a number
of years and the applicants are still um pending litigation as the neighbor um is constantly filing different paperwork. So, they want to keep their filing active, Mr. Chairman. And despite that, their extension we gave them for 3 years
has expired. So this has been going on for 6 years. So the applicant for file number 80244 uh 2444 would like to request a three-year extension to the order of conditions uh
as the matter is still in litigation. And this is the West Westlook Farm Dock Association. >> Okay. Need a motion to issue the Wait, there's one question. Is this the the are they contesting the right away to access the Okay, I remember. Okay,
>> move to continue. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I who made that? Jason J. Me. >> Yeah, two of us. Anyway, >> all right. My tip of the agenda was go to some more bills.
>> So, we don't need this anymore. This this order condition. No, that was in case it it came back for you. >> All right. So, we have minutes from 5126. President, myself, Jason, Phil, Burton, and Kevin. So, now we have everybody
who's here at the table except for Jake. So, if we can have a motion to accept the >> motion to approve. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Phil. >> Phil seconded. >> Phil. Yep. >> All right. All in favor? >> What's the date of those minutes? >> 512.
>> Thank you. I'll abstain since I wasn't up there. >> That was at the long board of selectment meeting, wasn't it? >> Who made the motion on Monday? Jason Phil >> Jason. >> Yeah, >> there's also this at the end of it. There's a book and page information. I
don't know if that really belong to >> I'll just take that off. >> Yeah, that's some kind obviously got caught up in it. >> Just like point that stuff out. They call the captain obvious. All right. Well, this one is already signed,
so I don't know if we need to do it again. >> All right, >> I'm with you. I I made it easy. >> Put this in there, too. >> What's that? >> A green card from this. >> Oh, okay. Perfect. Now, do you want me to mail that to him or you'll be able to
get that to >> Okay, perfect. >> Um, I think that's it. That's what else you have, Chris. >> That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Um, I thank you for coming for such a short agenda, but um, >> what is it? Oh, was it seven minutes? >> Phil had some discussion, I believe.
>> Oh, there's just one thing I I wanted to let people know because things might happen before we have the, you know, the the next meeting. Um, let's see. So, um,
so, uh, a short while ago, Peter Dylan, who's the hydraologist who represented the Corey project, submitted a letter, uh, to D of which we received a copy of and um,
under and analyzing from his perspective what the results of the uh, testing that was conducted in 2024 that long ago. >> Well, I think >> anyway and and you know his conclusion,
you know, was that it showed that there really was no the results of the various monitoring uh locations that were set up showed that there was no hydraulic connection between the pump and the BVW
or um Angeline Brook. And so, uh, so I got, uh, um, so I talked to George Campbell and he put together a letter which largely refuted what Dylan said
about the lack of a hydraulic connection. and uh and I don't know if this draft circulated or not, but he had also submitted um in 2025 a draft letter um of his analysis of the
tests uh you know the test run. remember how we challenged the fact that you know that they hadn't run the test right because they didn't they were looking at one well instead of two wells anyway and
and so um and so his uh and so a more detailed analysis of of the test results and without going into detail about it what he and Chris and I talked about was
um finalizing that that letter the of the test and also finalizing his critique of Dylan's um of his Dylan's analysis and to submit
it to DP and uh and at the site visit you know DP's kind of position was that there was um you know that no more submitts would be made, but Dylan had
submitted his and so we're going to respond to that. Um and the biggest thing that came out of the of the um of the site visit which which I think only Chris was there was um DP
taking the position that uh what we had put in our order of conditions which just related to the pump house and the and the pipe and the and the and the pump connections but didn't say anything
that operation and we had put a condition in is that that they had to file a notice of intent before they decided to operate and that was consistent at least in in our view, my view, whatever uh of the fact that um
that same language was in the administrative law judge decision and the previous SOC. So that they had to do that. The the new um DP um wetlands rep said no no more uh no
more NOIs. So uh so we're in the position now to figure out um assuming that they accept the proposition that there is in fact a connection between the
pumping and its impact on the wetland resource areas. What are they going to do about it? And so there's which I think had it gone forward the way we thought about it is that that would be discussed and decided by us. But it's
not going to play out that way as far as I can tell. And so the second piece of a letter that cover letter that I'm going to draft um is going to be focused on
the various things that we think the developer if they get around to developing the project which is still an open question need to do like recharging all the storm water back into the
groundwater and long-term monitoring and um and other creative things that we can come up with. So, uh, and and because we don't know when DP is
going to, u make a decision on this, I'm feeling like this silent clock is ticking and that Dylan submitted this thing and so we should try to get that in as soon as we reasonably can, which I
would hope to either this week or next. So, I'm going to, if you all agree, so I'm going to work with Chris and the chairman um and circulate this draft, but that's really what the intent is going to be. The cover letter is going
to try to summarize the high points and make the argument about what Campbell's analysis is and then also make the case of saying, well, since it's not coming back to us, we're going to tell you now what you think you should do if you
approve the if you approve the uh issue this SOC. It >> makes sense, >> you know. And we haven't heard anything from Buzzards Bay. and Buzzards Bay actually appealed our order saying, >> you know, we shouldn't have, you know,
we should have decided all this impact stuff at the time and we did a a bunch of uh improper things which at that time which we already responded to in writing. So that's already in front of D
now going back two years. So, >> so that that appeal is not not been final. >> So, so yeah. So, they cross appealed. Cory appealed and and we appealed and one of the things that one of the reasons that we wanted to issue the
order of conditions is because we were ordering them to do the restoration of the wetlands that they had disturbed um in building the access road and you know, whatever. and that they've never actually done the restoration work and
so you know it's just been treading water for that long partly for staffing reasons at D because and so this is so that's where it's at and >> I don't know we need to get a vote but you know that'll be a plan and um I mean
I don't have a problem circulating it >> you know I mean definitely circulate it afterwards I'll just leave it to Paul to decide what he wants to do with the draft because it goes out under over under over his under his signature. >> I recommend a motion be made, Mr. Chairman, to allow Phil to write the
letter uh with George Campbell's report and send it to Mass D for uh response to Peter Dylan's letter. >> Oh, review by us for send. >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. Send review for the commission members before we forward it. Correct.
>> All right. >> Okay. Yeah. Are are we able to um review it and offer feedback before the meeting? Do we want to have an open meeting? >> Right. So, and my only reservation about that and I just that's is it so it will just push out the date.
>> Yeah. We want to try to get it in as soon as possible. >> You got to respond quick. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Please. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I can circulate it electronically. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Motion from Jason. Second. >> Second. >> Second from J. All in favor?
All right. >> Perfect. >> What else do we have, sir? >> That's it. >> All right. Motion to >> see how close Angel Brookke is to this project cuz when you go down Adamsville Road, the crossing is marked and it seems like it's nowhere near there. >> Yeah. It's about 600 feet away. And
that's one of the arguments that >> 900 >> 900 ft. Yeah. Maybe the maybe the Yeah. And so >> yeah. Um and so what the uh yeah so what the test showed was that
you know there was no change in the brook uh uh elevation other than what was contributed by uh rainwater you know by storm um and so that's one of the
arguments that Dilman is making um and uh but that still leaves the BVW uh not addressed and I think uh if you I can circulate um once we get the
letters I the attachment will also have the letters and uh and so there's actually a low draw down at the monitoring wells and at the piometers that were closer to the wetlands
But George um applied this modeling analysis um and showed that if you actually instead of looking at three days of testing given the complexity of the bedrock well system, if you ran it for a
year that instead of having uh maybe a less than a foot to two feet, not even you know very small draw down you you've got multiples of that. You've got 10 and 20 times that
over certain months of the year through this model looking at um you know running it year round which is uh you know much more likely out you know outcome for what they're proposing to build there.
So, >> all right. Motion to adjourn. >> Readjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor? I