Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Falmouth officials raise concerns about DEP draft permit for 300‑unit 'Easterly' project
Summary
Town staff and residents pressed state DEP on a draft groundwater discharge permit for the 300‑unit Easterly development, saying the draft's numeric load (346 kg/yr) and flow limit imply the same 5 mg/L nitrogen average allowed in the settlement but omit the town's aspiration of 3 mg/L and clear mitigation details.
Falmouth officials and residents on March 9 scrutinized a draft Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection groundwater discharge permit for the 300‑unit Easterly project at 375 Sandwich Road, saying the draft does not reflect commitments the town negotiated in a settlement with the developer.
Assistant town staff explained that a settlement tied to the project’s comprehensive permit required an average effluent concentration of 5 mg/L total nitrogen with "best operational efforts" to achieve 3 mg/L annually, plus a $750,000 developer contribution to fund nitrogen‑offset measures. At the hearing, staff said the DEP’s draft instead sets a numeric annual load (346 kilograms per year) and a flow cap (49,950 gallons per day), numbers that mathematically equate to an imputed 5 mg/L average but do not incorporate the aspirational 3 mg/L target or clear mitigation steps.
"The applicant shall also employ mitigative measures to achieve net zero nitrogen load from the project to the Great Pond watershed," staff read from the settlement during the board presentation, underscoring town expectations for offsets and monitoring.
Wastewater Superintendent Amy Lel submitted comments during the DEP comment period asking the agency to reduce the draft permit’s total‑nitrogen allowance from 346 kg/year to about 207 kg/year — the figure that would equate to a 3 mg/L average — and asked for clarity about monitoring, mitigation plans and enforcement provisions. Board members and environmental stakeholders in the audience, including Wendy Bistler of the Kunameset River Trust, said the draft did not describe how net‑zero would be achieved or monitored for fertilizer and other nonpoint sources.
Board members asked whether the town can enforce its settlement requirements if the state permit issues different numeric standards. Town counsel and staff said the modified comprehensive permit remains a legally enforceable requirement, and the settlement includes financial triggers if mitigation commitments are not met. The DEP draft remained in comment status at the meeting; staff indicated they would continue technical and legal review and press the agency for a lower load and clearer mitigation language.
What residents asked: speakers urged the town to consider an appeal if the final DEP permit is less stringent than the settlement agreement and suggested the Select Board write to state elected officials to highlight apparent policy conflicts between housing appeals and watershed protection.
What’s next: wastewater staff will continue technical comments to DEP and the Select Board asked town counsel to identify enforcement options and next steps if the final DEP permit does not reflect settlement standards.
