[music] [music] I am raveling. Graveling graveling. unraveling. I'm graveling. I'm graveling. I'm ging the ceremonial >> Steve uh Leighton gavel that he gave me and he reminded me that I haven't been
using it enough lately. So, if you get too rowdy, watch out. >> All right. You know, you could be fitted with a gravel mute. >> I I could find a couple of grouse and go and shoot.
>> Yes, exactly. [laughter] Red grass. >> All right. Um, >> okay. >> We are very um we're getting into the agenda here. Um, it is uh December 3rd. It is at 4:30 and we are on the water quality management committee and um we
are very lucky to have here a woman named Elizabeth Ell's uh who has spent some time looking at and if I mispronounced this uh Elizabeth you you just correct me but it looks
like macrofite associated denitrification in a utrophic freshwater pond in southeastern Massachusetts. Um, we are very pleased to have you come in and um, tell us what you've been doing and what you've learned and what we can now know
and use as we go forward in trying to clean up our estuaries. >> Welcome. >> And if you need to know where a good restaurant is, just ask cuz we all know. >> Luckily, I'm from Cape Cod, so I frequent Felmouth. It's quite a beautiful area. So, thank you for having
me. My name is Elizabeth Ellis. recently finished my doctorate at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth in the school for marine science and technology specifically the coastal systems program and our lead is actually here tonight Dr. deliveries in the crowd. If we have bigger questions,
>> raise your hand. [clears throat] >> All right. Okay. Thank you. >> Focus on her. [laughter] >> Today, I'll be discussing an intransit nitrogen management pathway and its application on coastal health by quantifying macroofite associated
denitrification. And I just want to make clear that a macroofite here is just referring to aquatic plants. So, emergent, submerged, or floating species. Anthropogenic nitrogen degrades our estrine health. We see this through the form of utrification which is alol
blooms or excess plant growth. This excess nitrogen comes from both point sources which are wastewater treatment facilities or non-point sources. And in southeast Massachusetts that's typically septic systems, fertilizers and storm water. Nitrogen is
limiting in salt water but phosphorus is limiting in fresh water. And this is important from a management perspective because it's very important to regulate the amount of nitrogen traveling through these freshwater systems prior to re reaching our estuaries. The Clean Water Act in 1972 was
established to regulate pollutants such as nitrogen by imposing guidelines for reduction goals. So the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection along with the Massachusetts Estrays project developed these total maximum daily loads or TMDLs for impaired water.
And what that means is the amount of pollutant that it can enter a system before it is deemed impaired. Now to meet these TMDLs, municipalities are incorporating traditional approaches such as sewering with innovative and alternative approaches
that treat nitrogen at the source. Once again, wastewater treatment facility upgrades you see in that upper picture or sewering in transit, so through freshwater ponds and understanding the nitrogen removal pathways as well as in estuary. So that's that lower photo,
which could be through oyster aquaculture. I focused on an intransit approach looking at freshwater systems and their nitrogen reduction pathways which in New England are typically removing about 30 to 60% of the nitrogen
passing through them prior [snorts] to reaching the estuary. Now on Cape Cod we have over a thousand freshwater bodies. So those are both ponds and lakes and these are within 45 watersheds excuse me of 45 different estuaries. Many of these esties are are
deemed impaired. Yet despite impairment, these freshwater systems are still showing significant nitrogen load removal. The typical pathways that have been quantified already are through burial within the sediments, the plants taking up this nitrogen
helping them to grow as well as sediment denitrification. And today I'm going to be talking about what our study quantified which was macrophite associated denitrification. Now what denitrification is it is a microbially mediated process in which nitrate NO3 minus is converted to N2 or
D nitrogen gas and d nitrogen gas is the most abundant gas in our atmosphere. So this is a permanent removal pathway and it's important because the nitrogen is completely gone from the system. Now I just want to note that what macrofide associated ditrification means
is it is just saying that the plants are able to host these ditrifying bacteria. So they just offer a surface. As efforts are made to reduce nitrogen loads for impaired estuaries, there is a need to quantify nitrogen removal in freshwater ponds. They're already part
of the landscape. So it's important to understand how they're helping or what they're doing within a system to determine what the nitrogen removal processes are through the known pathways as well as knowing how they vary from pond to pond. So investigating these pathways is not a
new approach. uh it's been done for many different systems and in 2018 Amber Amber Unrew through the coastal systems program in UMass Dartmouth during her masters sought to quantify these pathways in two different macrofitic ponds. So ponds full of plants at the
head of impaired estuaries. The first being an example fillain's pond. If you look at the upper photo you can see where they are sitting in that boat. They're on top of a ton of different plants. Fins pond's located in Barnesville in Massachusetts. It's a 5 acre freshwater pond and has a 3-day
residence time. It's considered meatrophic, so it has a significant amount of nutrients coming through, but it is not an impaired body of water. Within this pond, 70% of the benthos or the bottom is covered in submerged species. And 30% of the surface is
covered in floating species. So these macrofites, there's a mix oxic water column. So low dissolved oxygen is found in June and October. It's important to note that for denitrification to occur, you need anoxic waters, so no oxygen. So
primarily, we'd think of denitriation occurring when there are these low dissolved oxygen conditions. Um, this pond is a major contributor to the Centerville River estuary that impaired estuary, but it also is an attenuator as freshwater ponds are. She did a nitrogen
load or mass balance of the loads on this system and found that through the three known pathways that burial that plant assimilation and that denitrification within the sediments they were able to quantify fully a 7% removal within this pond. So as that nitrogen is traveling through it's being
reduced by 7% and it's doing so primarily through burial and sediment denitrification. In literature sedime sediment denitrification is the primary pathway in which nitrogen is reduced in these systems. This was also done to Mil Pond in Falmouth. Milp Pond and Felmouth, if you
don't know, is located next to the East Famouth Public Library. It is a 15.6 acre freshwater pond. It has an 8-day residence time, so a bit longer than Finan's Pond, but it's considered utrophic, and that means that the bottom waters are enoxic, so have no oxygen for
four to five months of the year. And it's dominated by macrofites for six months on both the surface and the benthos. Although this is characterized as having poor water quality, it actually attenuates 53 to 62% of the nitrogen from its inflow to its outflow. And as
you can see, it's at the head of Green Pond. More specifically, looking here, it's also a major nitrogen contributor to the Green Pond estuary, although it does still remove a significant amount of nitrogen that's traveling through it. underall also did a nitrogen mass
balance on this system and found that through the known attenuation pathways 14% of the nitrogen was being removed. So where is the rest of this removal coming from and how do we quantify it and so what we found was we still needed to account for about 40% of that
nitrogen removal. She hypothesized that macrophy associated denitrification was occurring. So once again the plants are acting as the surface in which the denitrifying bacteria are able to to complete their role. So now in order to quantify macrofite
associated denitrification we collected plants from in the ponds brought them back to our lab and incubated them at insitu temperatures. So the temperature at which we collected them. We then collected water samples uh for excess nitrogen measurements from the head space of these vessels. And this is a photo here of what our incubations
typically look like. We do cap them to make them anoxic so we reduce any oxygen that's coming in and we do air um excuse me we do mix them as we are going through this other photo in the middle here. This is a photo of the type of plants we would have within each vessel.
And then on the right here is where we're starting to look at how we're going to understand what is driving this denitrification. And what we found is in our first assessment looking at denitrification versus how much plant was in that vessel that there's a clear linear relationship
between denitrification and the amount of plant that is present. We also found that there was a seasonality to our data and seasonality is just kind of a blanket term for things like plant productivity which incorporates light, temperature and nutrients in the system at the time.
So we found that there was two things really driving denitrification. the amount of plant matter as well as a seasonality. So when this was occurring within our system and we needed to extrapolate the fact that we knew that macrofit associated was happening. And so with our two factors we were able to
extrapolate to a whole pond nitrogen removal through our two different physical measurements that we had of biomass. Our first being a whole pond survey we did three times. We broke up the pond into 13 different sections and then we
collected a sample within that section at a specific time of year. We did that in May, September, and October. We also had discrete sampling. So, every time we went out into the pond and we did one of these incubations, which we have for numerous times of year, locations within the pond and species composition, we
were able to also collect this subsample. And we did so in section three and section 12, which we thought were the most representative of the pond. All of these were colle collected in 0.25 me squared quadrants. And then we were able to work up to a whole pond
biomass by also incorporating the area of the pond as well as the percent plant coverage just to ensure we weren't including any bare sediments which there was not much bare sediment there. So now having this dry tissue weight or
this plant mass for a certain time of year, we then incorporated it into our denitrification rate. We looked at different upper and lower bounds of our uh excuse me of our data and we took the area under the curve and we were able to
quantify that the whole pond um biomass driven by dry tissue weight amount and seasonality accounted to about 822 kg of nitrogen per year being removed. Now what does this number mean and how does it fit into the budget that we saw earlier? So stepping back into the
budget done by Andrew at all in 2018, we looked at the balance of known pathways and we saw once again our burial our plant simulation and denitrification only accounted for about 14% removal. But by plugging in our macrofite associated denitrification, we almost
closed the budget. That's about a 36% removal indicating that this is a really important pathway in the system. Also that is not species specific. uh blanket throughout the system. So what does this mean for us and what
does this mean for freshwater ponds? Freshwater ponds naturally provide ecosystem services as intransit nitrogen reduction pathways but this level of attenuation is really sight specific. What we found was that both fillins and mil pond attenuated nitrogen but there
were similarities and differences. The similarities involve all the necessary ingredients for denitrification to occur. So for that nitrate to be converted to N2, which are making sure there's nitrogen inputs coming in, having organic [clears throat] carbon available for the
microbes to be eating, having sufficient residence time, so the amount of time that the nitrogen's coming into contact with the sediment with the plants within the system and able to transform, as well as vegetation to stimulate the nitrogen uptake. But the differences we found between the two systems were the
longevity of low DO. If you remember, Finan's pond only had two examples of this low anoxic condition within the system, whereas Mil pond had four to six months of this enoxia as well as plant coverage. There was significantly more plant coverage on the surface of Mil Pond, which we believe created these
dense aggregates of the plants that facilitated these low oxygen conditions. Um so in essence Phil uh in fillins pond it stuck with its typical removal pathway which was sediment nitrification but in mill pond we're finding that it's macrofit associated denitrification that
is hosting this process. In general utrofic freshwater ponds offer ecosystem services to these saltwater systems or downgradient estuaries even absent of manipulation. So just the pond itself is offering this service. Ultimately though, the presence of dense
macrofites um is not something that is desired and not recommended as a management tool to increase nitrogen attenuation, but Mil Pond is pretty cool. >> Well, their plants are cool. >> Wow. >> So, um
I would like to thank the coastal systems program for helping me uh to get my degree and being a great place to work. I've been to Felmouth many times uh with sampling the water quality, working for with the Sitmon Group, which is your citizen volunteers. They've always been wonderful. Science wares,
Inc., I've known Kristen as long as I've been a member of the coastal systems program, the town of Falmouth, all the Mil Pond homeowners who had stopped by and let us park in their parking areas. Uh Amber Unrew's thesis, as well as the school for marine science and technology. And if you have later
questions that you want to discuss, you're feel free to email me. I also have sent Kristen my uh thesis for you to read and eventually we'll be publishing this work. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. That was that was great.
>> Next time you get this presentation, talk just a little slower. >> Oh, sorry. A little anxious. It was [laughter] good. Um but no, that was that was fabulous. Um I I'm going to start with our most um knowledgeable. Well, I should
say it because these these guys are pretty good, but >> go ahead. >> Yeah. So, uh, Elizabeth, I I was struck by your talk because I I saw this talk at Coastal Estrian Research Federation meetings in, uh, in Richmond, uh,
recently and and then lo and behold, it was on Mil Pond and I thought, wow, you know, because we we worry a lot about what comes down the river and what's making it into the into Green Pond and also everyone hates all that stuff
growing in there. So there's talk always about, you know, should we get rid of it? >> Should we copper sulfate it? I don't know what the strategy would be. Um, so I just thought people should appreciate the fact that
uh it's not just the uptake >> by the plants that's important. It's the denitrification fostered by the association of the microbes living somehow in association with those macrofites. Mhm. >> Do you know anything specific about what
those critters are that are living? You know, are they epipites on the surfaces? And >> yeah, we believe they're the epipites on the surfaces. >> And do we know what they are? >> I do not know. >> Okay,
Ed, you're up. the, you know, fascinating because I I guess to put it in layman's terms, that ugly stuff in the pond is doing a hell of a good job getting rid of nitrogen. >> Yes. >> And if we got rid of it, we'd have even more nitrogen going into green pine.
Mhm. >> Um you you mentioned kind of in passing there something about you know even absence of harvesting you know would it would mechanical harvesting of that biomass or whatever we want to refer to
it as uh inhibit the process because while harvested product is gone >> you're not getting that uh action that you're talking about with the little critters on the surface of the plant. So it sounds like that would be counterproductive. >> Absolutely. Yeah.
>> So, even though the pond's ugly and at times it kind of smells, >> gosh, without it we'd have a bigger problem and a need for more >> remediation through sewers, IAS, whatever. >> Yeah. We roughly calculated that uh mil pond is actually attenuating 14% of the
load that's reaching green pond. So, if you remove that, it would increase. >> Yeah. Require even more remediation by other methodologies. It's absolutely fascinating. Uh I I think this this kind of changed perspective of and gives you a little
more respect for the stuff that's growing out there. It's great. Thank you so much for doing this. >> Thank you, >> Steve. No questions. It's good talk. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Not [clears throat] neither. I thought it was very nicely done. >> Thank you. >> Great project and um of course
management questions come up and the important thing with management is that you make everyone happy all the time. But ignoring aesthetics, it would seem to me you could let the standing stock of macrofites go wild for most of the summer. Let them do their job. It's I I
think it's probably mostly it's a surface function, right? Maximum surface area probably means you're going to have maximum denitrification. Um, and then harvest at the end of the
season to maximize or [snorts] minimize the amount of stuff that's going to end up in the benthos. >> Mhm. >> I'm just trying to think of of how we could do the best job of reducing the amount of nitrogen that gets to green
pond. Anyway, just a thought. >> Yep. >> You think harvesting in the fall would be of benefit to the following spring? I don't know. >> It wasn't >> it when we had done it previously. >> Yeah, we did. We did it. >> We harvested right before the cranberry
harvest. So, midocctober and the spring data didn't show any difference. >> All right. >> Any difference? >> Hold on. >> What? >> Hold on. You can't you can't talk from the audience. You got to get up to the microphone. Okay. Let let's let's do this. Let's get through the the this board, then we'll go out to the
audience. Okay. Um >> Hold on. Go ahead. Um, to follow up on what Ed and Tom said, >> is it fair to say that if we if the freshwater ponds committee did their job
Uhhuh. which they will. I didn't I couldn't resist saying it that way for fun. But if if you got rid of the nitrogen at the source, >> then you wouldn't have the growth in the pond and you wouldn't need the growth in the pond. >> Correct. Yeah.
>> Which is a harder problem. [laughter] Can can I [clears throat] follow up on Christensen? Um >> you you you may follow up on Christensen >> the um the the spring result. Did you look at nitrogen in the bentos in the sediment? Was there a difference?
>> I think they did sediment samples. >> That's what I think that was them. >> But I don't remember. >> I don't either. I would have to dig up the >> Okay. Um because that's where you I would think would see a a difference show up and it may take several years because
>> Yes. Yeah. >> Our freshwater ponds to like our coastal embainments >> Mhm. >> are carpeted with excess nitrogen 50 or 75 years of adding nitrogen to >> I have I have I have two sort of like
questions. One of them is on one of the slides you said that three and 12 were the best and I'm wondering what made them best. >> So there's two different depths in the pond. 0.5 m at the head and it goes to about 1.2 at the rear of it. And I would
say that three and 12 had the most representative amount of plants that you saw in the pond. You have waterlies, water shield and then a really dense aggregate of these submerged species which include naive and among many others. And these had I would say roughly representative of that entire
bottom section was 12 including depth. And then three was one of our access points. So right when you entered uh it was a lot easier to collect but two got really shallow. It's towards that little stream. Uh so it was really hard to get the boat in there. And then one had a
lot of benthic vegetation and a little bit more sparse with what we were seeing on on the floating side. >> So it was more like reasonable access and some other things. Not like something special about those places would be really good. >> No, not necessarily something special, just reasonable access as well as I
thought. >> That's fine. >> And um the last one is at some point in everything you talked about. >> You mentioned carbon availability. >> Yes. >> And I'm just wondering, >> this sounds counterintuitive, but for a
thing like Mil Pawn, should we be should we be adding carbon >> to to to promote? I don't think so. I think you have a a very solid amount of carbon in the system. >> Okay. All right. That's fine. I'm gonna
open it up to the audience. Then >> step up to the microphone. Doctor. >> You have to state your full name, your social security number, your date of birth, >> and my routing number for my checking account. >> Immigration status. >> Oh, Georgeless. And that was terrific.
And to follow up on what Tom was saying and wait so if you did harvest in the fall and you could figure out the right time to do it when you said I'm sorry I don't remember you >> Kristen uh when you said there was no
change in the spring. So there was no change in what? So there's the biomass that you get the next spring and summer of new growth and then there's also the amount of sediment and it would seem as if you're taking away most of the
biomass in the fall eventually there's going to be less sediment. So when you said nothing changed. >> It's also the nutrients within the water column. So if you're just taking a water sample we didn't see any reduction in that. But was the plant growth the next year [clears throat] anywhere near what
it had been in previous years? >> Yep. >> So you I could do that. >> Yep. [laughter] >> So it seems like if you could time this correctly would help. >> Elizabeth, what will you be doing next? >> Oh, that's a great question. Um
[laughter] I don't know >> because you seem like very knowledgeable and we don't want to lose you off the cape. >> Oh, well I appreciate that. Um, I will of course be continuing my association [clears throat] with the coastal systems program, maybe even volunteering for Sitmon in the summer. We'll see. But,
uh, I'm looking at engineering firms. So, >> yes, going back to consulting. >> Uh, I will recognize you know any engineers. >> I will recognize I do a couple. Miss Amy Low. >> I'm I regret very much being late and missing a lot of your presentation. I so
but my question was just um do do you think it's bacteria on the surface of the plants that's doing the denitrification? >> Yes. >> Okay. Somebody asked something and you said epipites and I didn't >> they're also on the surface >> right but it but it's it's the bacteria
on the surface of the plants. So it's it's using it like >> step up to the microphone. Share the mic. >> I'm sorry. [laughter] So it's not me. So a a lot of so a lot of engineered uh wastewater treatment systems use a
surface area >> um add a surface area for bacteria to grow on to enhance denitrification and in this case it's the plants in the in the water that are providing that surface area. >> Okay, good. I just wanted to clarify because you said something about ep epipytes which made it sound like it was
an uptake uh like epipites doing the uptake. So >> okay, >> great presentation. I'm going to go look at the rest [laughter] of this. >> But you you definitively showed with 15N tracers the conversion N2. [clears throat]
>> We didn't do 15 N tracers. We did N2 argon. >> Okay. >> But [clears throat] yeah. Okay. >> We used an IRMS. >> All right. Steve's got a question. >> Yes. >> You mentioned the fact that phosphorus is more important for freshwater ponds and nitrogen for saltwater ponds. This
is a freshwater pond, right? >> Yes. Um, if you didn't care about what happened to the estuary, >> Mhm. >> only what happened to the pond. >> Mhm. >> If you were a selfish resident just living around the pond, and if you had to pay separately for
phosphorus removal or nitrogen removal, you couldn't just be magnanimous and say take it all out. Which would you take out? >> For freshwater phosphorus, >> you take the phosphorus. >> Focus on that. Yeah. So, >> but I care about the downstream estate,
>> right? So, for that reason, we should take out [laughter] >> we should take out everything. >> Yeah. >> Well, yes. >> As much [clears throat] as we can. >> Yes. >> The Can I interject here briefly? The
>> Tom, you're recognized. >> Thanks. Um if you take out the phosphorus from this system, you dramatically reduce the surface area of the macrofites. >> Right. >> Right. So you're going to end up
increasing the amount of nitrogen that's getting to Green Pond by taking out the phosphorus in the freshwater intermediate flow through system. >> All right. You know, I just wanted to make sure I understood the trade-off. >> And then that's when you incorporate a different innovative technology beyond
what the pond can do itself. I want to thank you for taking the time to come explain this to us. >> Absolutely. >> It's great. This is the stuff that we wallow in all all the time. Um not everybody does. You do as well.
>> Apparently you do. And um >> I I just want to say it takes a community of people that care about this stuff to understand it, figure it out. You know, >> there's a lot of nuances of of this stuff. So, um thank you for your contribution. Well, thank you for having
me and thank you, Kristen. >> Thank you. >> So, the second item on the agenda is a recommendation to establish a wastewater infrastructure investment fund or WIF.
Um at the our last meeting I provided an overview of what that means but we did not have the listed in the agenda of discussion and vote. Um I think what item two is is for this
board to decide to say that we support the concept. I'm going to use the whiff. I as a baseball player in my youth who couldn't hit the ball um I think whiff is very uh appropriate but I'm looking for comment
or whatever but maybe a vote to recommend to the selectman that we we believe that establishing a wastewater infrastructure investment fund um is an appropriate uh way to guarantee a source of revenue
um for some wastewater projects going forward. not not not all that we need, but at least a a foundational uh amount of money. >> Yeah. So, I'll willing to make that motion that we endorse this idea without delving into the details of what the
actual levy should be or anything else. >> No, that's that's up to others to figure out the value, but the concept of a of a way >> second that. >> Okay. There's been a motion made and seconded. Um comments from the board.
one this correct me if I'm wrong but this is a tool I look at it as I correct as proposition three and a half in other when you run out of money from proposition 2 and a half you can get proposition money from proposition three
and a half as long as it's for wastewater treatment >> well specific [clears throat] it's subject to select board and town meeting and I think even town approval so It's crazy not to allow it as a tool and then on
the particular instance you decide if that particular project is worth spending money on. >> Tom, um Steve, it's not just wastewater. It's water management issues across includes paper clips. >> Okay. But I'm just saying I just wanted
to make it clear. I didn't want people thinking it was just for wastewater projects. >> Amy, you want to talk? >> W stands for water, not waste water. I appreciate the support for this concept. Uh I gave a presentation to the
select board a month or so ago about this and um I think the it's it's my understanding that the select board is interested in moving this um somewhat in parallel with a um residential tax
exemption. Um which the residential tax exemption will take more time. Um, so I want I want to think a little bit more about that and I think um I think we could lay the groundwork for the um the whiff um and wait for the mechanics of
the other um the residential tax exemption to work themselves out. I think it would be very helpful for the town in its planning for wastewater infrastructure to know that this additional funding source is available.
>> Okay. Uh all those in favor of a letter recommend to the board of selectmen. Uh I don't know what the motion was but um that the water quality management committee supports the concept of a whiff. >> Yes, we more than support. We actively
endorse it. We need to move forward on it. >> All those in favor signify by raising their right hand and saying I. >> I. I. >> Okay. Thank you. Kristen, will you draft a letter and uh I'll put it together.
There you go. >> I think he has his hand. >> Oh, Matt has his hand up. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Time out. Do Do we need a Matt? Do we need to back the vote down? >> Um, >> get up to get up to the microphone. Matt. Matt, have you been ill? Are you
okay? You I haven't seen you for weeks. I haven't seen you for weeks. Are you all right? [laughter] >> I have multiple businesses to attend to. >> Okay. Um >> I'll be sure. >> So um uh Matteo Hanley um Vit Giant Farm
um and my question is um you know it's hard for the public general public even for me to understand what exactly you're voting on is can you give an explanation for the the people following this issue at home? >> Sure. Um so Amy made a presentation to
the selectman and at our last water quality management committee we put it in front of this board for presentation. Um the state legislature has allowed communities to allow for a wastewater a
water to wastewater infrastructure investment fund to be established which is a little bit sort of like you know there's a general fund over here of all the money that we collect and do things for to say you raise money on the on the
value of property over here but it's for water and wastewater and it could be up to 3%. Now I think there's 3% of what >> you're allowed to use the word value of the property value of the property and um
I think there Amy will correct me because she knows this better than I do. I think there's three communities on the Cape that have adopted this already ready already and one uh brother Barnesville is looking at it and so it sets up a little bit of a re underlying revenue stream
>> um in the range of $2 to3 million which is not enough to do all the wastewater work we have to do >> but it says it's there it's not part of the general fund and it's got to go to water or wastewater. Um, so it's a it's
a thing that the legislature did that kind of slides on the edge of the Proposition 2 and a half override. Um, but it is there and we need to raise money to clean up our estuary. So, um, Amy did a good presentation to the
selectman. Selectmen are going to bring it up later to consider it. And I just have asked one more qualifier. It's one more question just to clarify. It's value of the property on property transfer. Is that correct? >> No. >> No.
>> Okay. >> It's assessed value. >> No. >> Assessed value on everyone's property. So >> yeah. So >> that generates more than 3 million a year. >> No, I don't think so. >> No. The number the numbers number if it's 1% it's a million and a half. It's 2%.
>> It's a little bit over two million. If it's 3% it's a little bit over three million. So, um, it's it's just a it's a way to start building like if we do several years >> of looking at water management plans and
just developing things, the kitty builds up a little bit and and um it it's it sets the stage that it's money for wastewater. That's all. Okay. Um, [clears throat] did I did I answer your question? Yeah, I actually did read that article in the paper about that
state um initiative and um as you know I've been advocating for a fund for IIA systems. Um I've been following as you guys know I've been here for all the watershed planning. >> You weren't here for the last four weeks. I really I got I got concerned. I
I was put on an APB on you. [gasps] >> But um I really you know the fund seems small for a municipal spend spending on wastewater. But when it comes to you know residential for um some kind of
stipend or subsidy for homeowners especially on fixed income you know Fmouth has a large retirement community who are on fixed incomes. No one here needs explanation about how expensive it's become to live in Falmouth. You know, um we're looking at um mandating
7,000 homes in the town of Falmouth um change their septic systems to to IIA systems. this if this could be used in a productive way to help, you know, lowincome, you know, families here in Falmouth to to keep them in their homes,
keep their house affordable, you know, with these mandated IIA systems. This this fund could really make a big difference. I hope it it's this isn't just, you know, a drop in the bucket on municipal sewer project. I hope this is this is a
substantial start to a fund that can really help homeowners here in Falmouth on fixed incomes. >> Thank you. I know that you'll follow us on uh the TV when you don't attend. Um we've over the last meeting or so talked
about our things going forward and one of them is trying to figure out the equity fairness issue >> um in recommendations. So, um, yes, you know, we need to figure out how to make it affordable for people and distribute the money. Um, Jonathan's not here cuz
his son got married in Texas. Shame on his son for living in Texas and Jonathan campaign here, but [laughter] you know, we we've we've got an ARC we've got a bill in the before the legislature to make things better. I don't know if it'll pass this year and get out of committee, but we'll come back next
year. Gang busters and I expect you to be part of that to try to get it through for some um financial relief from the state for homeowners that have to put it in the IA system. Thank you, Matt. >> You're welcome. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um so, we had a motion. Uh, did we vote? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Well, Matt Matt was speaking, so I couldn't could I'm sorry. >> We're all good. >> Um, next one is a recommendation to support
the board of health memorandum on fair distribution of costs and foundless efforts to meet water quality management targets. A discussion in a vote. And Steve Leighton, I think this is yours. >> Thank you, Steve. Um, we've discussed
this general topic before. Uh the members of this committee all have a copy of the health department letter for which we [clears throat and cough] thank George Davos and other members of the health department for writing. And so
with um Tom Duncan and Ken Foreman's help, I wrote up a draft of a letter that we could send supporting the board of health letter with a few more details. And uh I'd like to hear
comments on that. Suggestives or perhaps approving it as is. >> Christine, do we have a a slide of this we can put up? >> I can. >> So people can see what um is being suggested. I think if you show the whole thing,
it'll be hard to read. So, oh, >> maybe you can magnify it. >> Show the parts. >> Kristen's a lot younger than most of the people on this board and so she knows a lot more about what to do with computers than we do.
That That was a shout out. That was a little shout out. How about those Patriots? >> They looked pretty good the other night. >> They did good all season. Good all >> season. So there's the first part of your I can't put it all up there or no one will read it. >> That's okay.
>> We have it. But everybody received this and read it. Correct. In >> fact, I I move that it be approved as is set the stage. Should this second? >> Okay. It's been moved and seconded and
now it's open to discussion. >> There's one minor glitch. It's no longer the board of select men. It's the select board. >> Mhm. So the BOS should be changed
spelled out select board I believe >> where it's the last line in the second paragraph where it says the BOS etc. >> Oh where we're talking about committee makeups. It should be the select board. >> Right.
Thank you. >> Ed, you would like to comment? Okay. Um, there's some wording that really kind of gives me some heartburn. Um, it seems the the gist of it is talking
about people are going to have to pay a lot of money for IAS. Um, people have to pay a lot of money for sewers. And one of the things I feel is the the tone is that well we
got to help the people with IAS cuz the sewer people get a better deal and that's really not true. Um the cost first paragraph it says existing cost distribution scheme disproportionately burdens some members
of the community and it's not just the IIA folks but the sewer people um who with the costs that are coming in I think bidding just closed and probably be awarding the bid for great pond phase one um
>> within with huh >> bids closed tomorrow >> thought it was November 30th >> delaying delayed. >> Oh, okay. Tomorrow, just try to keep you honest. >> Okay. Well, this wasn't known to me. Anyway, so that contract, the contracts
plural, will be awarded soon, at which point the numbers will start to come together and eventually the select board will determine with advice from Amy and the rest of the crew what the betterment will be. If a betterment for sewing
comes in over $20,000, an IIA is a better deal. It's cheaper out of pocket than the people that have to be seeded. Why is that? It It's because of the state tax credit structure >> currently.
>> Well, currently >> the change that's proposed >> currently currently. >> Yes. Using today's numbers, >> if you assume it cost you 40 grand for an IIA, and that's not the lowest or the highest number that's tossed out there,
and a 30 thou a $20,000 betterment, with an IIA, you spend 40 grand, you are eligible for an $18,000 tax credit, $22,000 net out-ofpocket cost, 40 less
18 for the sewer. assume a $7,000 hookup which is eligible for tax credit up to 60% 4,200. So for your just hookup from your house to the street $2,800 out of pocket and then if you take a $20,000
betterment which I think great pond phase one I'm guessing will come in more like 25 to 30 but it's unknown until that's worked out. But at a $20,000 Betterment plus the 2,800 for your 40%
of the hookup, you're at 228 versus 22 out of pocket for the IIA. The IIA is cheaper. So, one of my concerns is we talk equity, it seems to be slanted
swords. IA needs equity so that they're treated as fairly as the sewers. And my position is IIA is a cheaper deal and the betterments aren't going to get less as we expand sewing. And you know, I'm guessing based on earlier presentations
over the past year that the betterment in Great Pond phase one will be somewhere in the upper 20 to 30 plus,000 making the IIA significantly less expensive under current cost structures. So the best thing this town can do and
and I don't disagree with the whole concept of the select board organizing some committee subcommittee some working group to address the financing but the best thing the town can do is and it already is working the tax credit
becoming a refundable tax credit so that lowincome people will qualify for that $18,000. Right now, you have to have enough income to pay $4,000 worth of taxes over up to a six-year period to get the full 18 grand. And a lot of
fixed income, lowincome people that may have inherited a house aren't eligible because they don't pay enough taxes. So, they don't get it. So, hopefully that will happen. It needs to happen. The other thing Amy just mentioned in passing, but the town is looking at
seriously, is the residential tax exemption. That needs to happen for the same reasons. And Falmouth is late to the gate again to get that on board. MASHB just a month
ago approved continuation at a 20% residential tax exemption. They started out several years ago at 5%. And they quickly boosted it to 20 and they recently in November said 20
again. Up to 35% exemption is allowed under state law. Seasonal communities has talked about but hasn't committed to becoming a seasonal community can do up to a 50% residential tax exemption.
Think what that would do for the lowincome fixed income homeowner. 17 towns and states have enacted that including Barnstto at 25%. Province Town and Truro are at 35%.
Eastam just started at 3%. Chadam is at 35%. Almost half of the Cape Towns already have it. Seven towns on the vineyard. West Tisberry's at 30%, Tisberry at 22, Oak Bluffs at 15, and Nantucket
25%. Why did they do that? A very good article was in the Enterprise MASHP edition and [clears throat] um I'm not sure which of the cohorts for our great reporter wrote it, but they
had a very nice explanation and a discussion summary of what the select board talked about and their reasons for doing this. And in the the Vineyard Papers, they did the [snorts] same type of reporting. I think it was the Vineyard Gazette, might have been the Vineyard Times, but one of them talked
about why this is so important. And I think as as a big part of this letter that we're being asked to endorse, we should emphasize the need to expedite the approval of a residential tax exemption in the town of Felmouth. It's
the best way and I [clears throat] think the quickest way that the town can in effect be providing help to lowincome people. fixed income people who are going to be faced with the six or 7,000 IIA mandates over the next 20 to 50
years or sewing as soon as two years from now when the betterments start coming home to roost. So that that's my >> lecture I guess on that >> comment. You you can you just just sit
sit tight sit tight finish >> cuz I got a couple of more notes but that was the big one and I'm sorry to pontificate but sometimes I do get carried away as you've noticed. >> Um you talk about in third paragraph mentioned the the privilege of sewers and again I object to the language
because it's a burden. It's not a privilege just as much as the IAS aren't a privilege. they are a burden. Um so you know it's just a a terminology that I don't feel is appropriate. Um the town to consider any other venue for
subsidies would [clears throat] be a budget buster. It's not in any capital plan. It's not in any long-term plans. to significantly spend5 $10,000 per IIA over the next 30 50 years would be a
total rewrite of some of the town budget planning going forward. Um but something does need to be done and I think the the best thing is that a getting the state tax credit changed to a refundable and b getting the the state uh the town to do
a residential tax exemption. [clears throat] Uh the last paragraph you talked about direct and indirect cost confused me because I don't know what that means. The direct in and indirect costs and benefits to property owners including capital and operating
costs da da da. I'm not sure what we talking landscaping cost after putting in a sewer or an IIA or what what that means. I don't know. So that's what I had on this. >> All right. Good. John, you want to talk? I I believe Ed has misinterpreted what
we're trying to do with this letter. We have in the town a model for how we spread the cost of sewer [clears throat] projects. We do not have any such model
for how we deal with IAS. And I think the purpose of this letter was to send a message to the selectman and to the finance committee that [clears throat] in order for us to proceed with watershed plans that have a significant
number of IAS, we have got as a town to figure out how we can contribute in a meaningful way to IAS in the same way that we have historically done with sewer projects.
That's my read of this letter. uh the all the little pieces that might go into that uh we can chat uh in the future, but I think the signal we're trying to send to the selectman and the finance people is that in their 10-year capital
plan at the moment, they've figured out how we're going to fund sewer projects, [clears throat] but they have put nothing in on how we're [snorts] going to sub help the people out with IAS, right? And I think that's what we're trying to to convey
with this letter, >> right? I I I like to use the word John rather than subsidize, incentivize, you know, like how do we encourage people to put IAS in in certain places, but Tom, go over there. Um, George and John can
both correct me on this, but my feeling as things have unfolded is this their letter of support for this idea is a direct outgrowth of the recent mandate for new construction to install IAS. I
think this probably came mostly out of that and their letter of support is very focused on that and I think Ed's points are really good ones and they were well presented and we really need to follow up on the implications there. But right
now I think we should stick with a tightly focused letter that's in direct support for the issues that the port of health raised. >> Okay. And yeah, >> and I I would think that we really want to follow up on Ed's points, further discussion.
>> So, I'm going to open up to the rest of the people unless Ken, you got something? >> No, I mean I I I Ed raised a couple of good points with regard I think mostly to the tone of the letter as if there's some huge inequity and I don't I think that's not the right way to go. I think
we should be saying we want a fair system and not >> say that, you know, somehow the people with sewers are favored over the people with dies. I don't think >> I think I think I think Ste Steve your letter is a great start. It's it it sort of frames some stuff. The board of
health had their perspective. We've got a little bit different perspective. Ed and Steve, can you two work together before the next meeting to maybe come up with a second draft? >> Yes, I'd be happy to. >> Okay. So, let's let's try. Can I just speak to what Ed said?
>> I I think his his points are valid and there are so many details. That's what I was trying to show in the in the last uh paragraph. It it doesn't really matter for purposes of this letter what they
are or which system is currently the loser. I I mean going to the losing households, the point is for the se board of the select board to create a committee which could be this committee
or a subset of this committee >> whatever >> to >> to go over those. No, >> and I think Ed would be a fantastic person on that committee. I I think I think we are I think we're at the point, Steve, where >> clearly the issue of >> the financial cost to any individual
homeowner for an IIA >> as opposed to the in conjunction with the financial cost to any individual homeowner who has to connect to the sewer. We need to kind of build uh we need to sort of focus
somehow back to the select board that this is an item that warrants discussion and warrants some review and um some evaluation to get to the point where people have to put an IIA [clears throat] in aren't
plus or minus of the people having to connect to the sewer. So, um I think this is a great start and if you guys are willing to work together to come back um [clears throat] we I might skip you into the um January meeting because the next meeting is going to have a lot to do with attenuation.
Okay. Uh Kristen and I have been setting this up to talk a lot about attenuation of nitrogen. So I I don't think there's an immediate need with the board, the select board, but I think if we get something clean and and and a good recommendation that the select board
will listen to us. So >> my suggestion, >> hold on a second. Go ahead. I got Tom Tom said. >> I was just going to suggest I'll effectively table my motion. >> Okay. >> For for further discussion. >> Okay. All those in favor of Tom effectively tableabling a motion. I
think you should do it ineffectively. >> Thank just whatever it takes. >> All those in favor of Tom ineffectually tableing his motion signifying say I. But Steve, let me just make a pitch for having I think that [clears throat]
given that it sounds to me that Tom and John and I and Ken and I suspect John Calfman when he'll be here, but it doesn't matter because we've already got four are in favor of something very close to
this. Oh, I I >> And that if that Ed and I can remove the asymmetries that Ed objects to, it would be easily ready for passage at the next meeting. >> Okay. I have I have a sense that we're not in a lot of [clears throat] disagreement here. So, um, as we unfold
the agenda for the next meeting, if it fits in, we'll get you in. Okay. >> Very good. Right. [clears throat] ask if anybody reach out there to my loyal followers [laughter] step up to the microphone just
because we are on TV so you have to kind of say you know >> shockingly I'm still George Topouloolis after all this >> oh wait a minute >> we had such opportunity >> does anybody know this oh my god >> um >> thank So, George,
>> uh, most important, I want to just speak in favor of the the grand um, design of encouraging the or urging the select board to pay attention to what you've
discussed and a fair way to distribute the cost not just of the sewers and the IAS, but of all of the wastewater management plans. You all are embedded in this. You've been thinking about it. You've been
talking about it. Most people in the town have no idea that in the next 10 to 20 years, the town's going to have to spend close to a billion dollars with a B.
They've budgeted, I believe, in the 10-year budget, 700 and something million, but that doesn't take into account any of the IIA systems or the management system to take
care of all those IIA systems that I believe is mandated by the state in the wastewater management plans. Uh, oh, I want to emphasize I'm speaking as a private citizen. I happen to be on the board of health. I'm not speaking
for the board of health. I will say, Tom, this issue long preceded consideration of that new regulation. So, it wasn't a response to that. >> Okay. Thank you. Um
I don't know what the best way the to fairly distribute this burden but I think not thinking about it is a disastrous approach and as I understand it being a washure who's only been here
seven years the town's been kicking this can down the [clears throat] road for 20 plus years and apparently A couple of decades ago, the federal government would have paid 90% of the cost to sewer the entire town, but that
would have cost 10%. And so, of course, it was voted down. People need to understand this is not something that you folks or the board of health or the select board just came up with this billion dollar plan that came from blue.
It's something we have to do because the state's mandating it. I think it's very important that we look at fair ways to distribute the cost. I don't know what that is and there could be lots of different fairways, but
the longer we take to come up with a plan and so I want to endorse Steve's urgency about this. As soon as people know what group they're in, they will because they are human
be biased towards that group even if they don't know it. And I should say I live in Ticket so I'm in the phase one of Great Pond. So I'm biased. Um and uh I don't know what influence that has on
anything I'm going to say except I know it's there. I urge you to really press the select board. I haven't read this letter, so I'm not saying specifically this letter, but it's the the general uh thing. And
especially that urging them to form a committee with a lot of community input and a lot of making the community realize what we're up against and that this should be fairly distributed. You you mentioned two
groups, the sewer group and the IIA group. There's also another very important group, the people who don't have to do anything. >> Yeah. >> But they're gaining as much as everyone else from from all of this >> and I think I'll stop there. So please
>> Thank you. minor correction >> [clears throat] >> u more like just setting the facts straight. Um, back when the EPA was formed and they put a lot of money out to get rid of certain wastewater discharges directly, they weren't
focused on estuary health. And at the time, uh, the uh the 90% on the dollar extended through and up to Mara Vista, but not for the rest of our sewer areas
at the time. Um, and for whatever reason, and I I'm not going to go into it, Maravista has left off the list, but it's been now been seared, and we're seeing the results of the Marav Vista sewing and the better health and the issue is Ken, you were you were in the you were in the you were in the water
today. >> Were you in the water? >> Couple days ago. >> Yeah. How is it looking? >> Cold. >> Cold. >> Six degrees. I can tell you managed to make personal experience. >> Cool. Y'all, >> but yeah. No, I I I think we're all on board to try to clean things up.
>> And the other thing I'll say about that um letter that the board of health wrote, it's very non-specific because we know we don't know what the costs are going to be. We don't know everything that's going to need to be done. And so
we didn't we intentionally tried to stay did stay away from that. but also that it encourages the fair distribution not just of IAS and sewers but of everything. The outflow pipe, the
wastewater treatment plants, the whole kitten kaboodleoodle, if you will. >> We're making progress. We'll get there. We're making progress. We'll get there. We just got to get public support and pull it off. There's a woman in an orange shirt back there. I don't think she's in prison,
but it damn. It looks like like >> orange is the new black. Orange is the new whatever. >> Orange for oolog. Um Maggie McGau. Um I live in Wa Quite. I'm a member of the Felmouth Pond Coalition and now president of Citizens for the Protection
of Wu Bay. And I just want to say that uh I believe I speak for CPWB in strongly endorsing this step to be taken by this committee. uh you know the Walkway Bay area won't be or portions
largest portions of the Walkway Bay um watershed won't be sewarded ever which means that the population is is principally looking at IAS or very largely looking at IAS and it is our
hope that people will move quickly to install IAS as a way of remediating the water quality there. And so this kind of equalizing of costs across Felmouth will
be an encouragement to people to not just kick the can and wait and wait and wait if [clears throat] they know that they're going to have some kind of financial break from the town. That will that will be very incentivizing. Thank you. >> My toe is very sore. I don't want to
kick the can anymore. >> Oh, right. Is that all? Matt, come on up. >> Matt Hanley, Vintage Iron Farm. Um I think you know this we're heading in the right direction that as as a town and um
my recommendation is the town forms uh what Barnstable came with us. They came to us with the Barnstable SUP the the septic utility program. I feel if if we if Falmouth builds this entity, a Falmouth sewer
utility program or Falmouth sewer fund, then then we [clears throat] can fund that similar to we fund the CPC that you know we um we take we take funds that we put into this this this um organization just like the community
preservation and then we can use it to those funds can be um then transferred to private properties um and another way by if we actually set up this fund. Right now, it's my
understanding from my conversations with Karen Peterson from Buzz's Bay Coalition, the town of Falmouth is paying a D um nitrogen offset plan. So since the our wastewater treatment facility contributes nitrogen to West Mouth Harbor, which is already a
nitrogen sensitive area, the agreement that was signed with the Buzz Bay coalition was that Falmouth would offset the nitrogen contribution to that watershed. So we're paying an out out of town agency
to put septic systems in to offset our nitrogen in the west with wershed. if we had our own septic utility program, we could retain that money instead of giving it to an out of town agency. >> So, you're a little bit off topic, but that's okay. The next item on the agenda
is to talk about development of responsible management entity to manage how these things go. >> So, um if you can, let's get to the next one and then you're all your comments right now are probably more generic to the next item. How's that? >> All right. Great. Thank you.
wants to say something. >> You ready, John? >> All set. >> You want to go to the agenda? You want to go up to the microphone or you want to talk from there? >> No, I'll talk from here. >> Okay. So, um just to frame this a little bit, the next item on the agenda. So,
was it one meeting ago or two meetings ago or whatever? we sort of this board is kind of at a crossroads for what do we do? You know, um the wastewater um division of the DPW does a lot of
sewer this or that. But one of the things that surfaced was um that if as we go forward and we get a lot more IAS than we currently have, how the hell do we know that the IAS are
working? How the hell do we know that um people have have signed up and they're doing what they're doing? And um when you have a hundred of them and there's a bunch of little numbers and people measuring stuff, it's not a big deal. But when you get thousands, it becomes
overwhelming. And um we had a conversation probably close to a year ago now, John, from uh Mass Tech where they talked a little bit about uh you know, things they're doing. They're doing some stuff at Shouel Pond and they're doing some stuff in West
Felmouth, but it's very small scale. So [snorts] among things that this board can wrestle with their work on over time is how does the town as an entity be able to monitor what's going on with
IIA systems? um you know does that mean more staff in some entity of the town the board of health uh the wastewater division some you know maybe the IIA division I don't know but um
a bunch of work was done a couple of probably more than a couple years ago now John how many five years ago six eight years eight years ago looking at um Oyster Pond and [clears throat] >> I'm sure everybody knows where Oyster Pond where the oysters are um and Oyster
Pond is between Surf Drive and uh coming upland. >> There are actually two Oyster Ponds at F. >> Yes. [laughter] >> Well, yes, but we're talking about the one that you live above. >> Okay. [laughter] No, but there might be people listening
who live next to the other one. >> Yep. So anyways, uh John and um George Hoffelder spent a lot of time when we were looking at oyster pond a few years ago um to try to figure out
how does one keep track of what's going on and whatnot. And so uh I'm turning this over to John to talk about what they did. the D is um a player in this but they don't know that they are. So part of this
discussion is to get it going to bring it up with this board and maybe before the select board to reach back to the D to say we we really want to engage with you and figure out if we're going to have thousands of IAS in this town, how
do we really monitor and manage them? Okay. It's it's it's among other things that we've got to look at and do. It's it's not insignificant, but I'm looking across this board and I've got a lot of people around me that are very competent. I'm not, but um I think
we can get there. So, let me just start a bit of history. Um, we know as we develop these watershed plans that IAS are going to be an important part of how we succeed at
at overcoming the problem with nutrients in our coastal ponds. Um, [clears throat] at the moment [snorts] the board of health sort of oversees IAS as they're installed and it's left to
the individual homeowners to get a contract for their maintenance and uh the board of health monitors uh with advances that we've done from title five by the board of health developing home rule rates that are much
stricter on how you deal with IIA as than the state regulations. But as we begin to put in many of these uh one of the things that's very obvious is the homeowner can no longer be responsible
uh for uh maintaining and contracting that that's done. And the difference is that uh now when a homeowner puts in an IIA, they're responsible to the board of health that it's operating properly. As
we begin to use IAS in watersheds, uh it's not the board of health anymore. It's the DP who we're going to have to persuade that all these IAS that we've installed are operating up to the
specifications of uh that they mandate and and so that necessitates the development of the uh responsible management entity. In other words, we've got to come up with an a a unit that can
responsibly uh oversee these uh many IAS and report to D on a timely basis that and satisfy D that they're operating up
to specs. And so that's a real change. Um there two principal models that have been used. Um, one would be that the town develops its own responsible management entity that I believe could
not be managed by the board of health but would have to be managed by the department of public works. That's a model which has been adopted by Barnstable. They intend to run their own
uh RME within the Department of Public Works. But the other model is that we might contract all or part of those services out to other entities. And we have the benefit of having Masttec and
the Barnstable County uh Department of Health and Environment who are willing to pick up parts of this load. So that's not I think a big decision we need to make. But uh so back eight years ago as
we were developing a conserv a comprehensive wastewater management plan for oyster pond we and we were principally proposing to do that solely with IAS because at that point there was not
treatment capacity at the west found plant to do earth by sewer. And so we sat down and we came up with a respon a design of a responsible management entity which I've all of you
have uh taken a or been given to you in your packages. Um we developed that that was the model that Masttec used to start when they got a million-doll grant to
work on uh management entities. and we've not yet seen a final product from that and I'll chat a little bit about that in a minute. Um they're just two aspects if you read through I thought we
had done a pretty nice job of coming up with a manageable plan um in many ways built off the new home rule rags of the board of health. But there are two things that I think that we
should be focusing on. Um, one one of them is phasing IAS. Um, when we recommended the plan for Oyster Pond, we had a two-phase program. We said we will
sewer we will put in IAS for X number of homes in that watershed and we'll monitor and watch them for a period of time and see what their impact is on the pond and then decide whether we've
managed to recover things to where we want to be or whether we want to then uh put in another series of IAS and I think that is an approach which I think we're going to want to modify and use here.
And my feeling is as we develop these watershed plans, we should have a phase phasing in of the IAS. And as an example of how we might think about that is that in the first phase we would do
everything within 200 ft of the principal water body and uh we would monitor that for five years and report to D and if we weren't where we thought we had to be we would move back to 800 ft
uh just in steps and I think we can talk about those steps and and the timing are things I think for future discussions. The second second thing I wanted to emphasize was
uh a monitoring program. So with the current state mandates uh you have to monitor four times an individual IIA every year. after a few years you can come back to the board of health and get that reduced by half.
Uh at the moment in the the shovel pond project which Z Crocker is running they're monitoring once a month. Um the program that we outlined is here and
it it briefly without going into a great deal of detail. There was a probationary period and that follows very much what the board of health is doing. Uh you monitor six times a year for the first year. If the system is operating up to
specifications uh they can go on to the next step. If after the the probation period they're not operating up to specs, it's up to the homeowner to get them operating
there. Um after the proberry probary pro probationary period um can you go up to the next piece? The idea was [clears throat] even even doing each system if you're if
we're doing a thousand systems for example even monitoring them uh twice a year would be prohibitively expensive. So we came up with a model that every year you would model one 12th of the
system. So that every year each system would be uh monitored for for nutrients uh once with a starting date calendar date of September each year. If it was a summer home, you'd make sure that it was
being monitored during the time it was being occupied. And uh that the systems either meet or exceed 10 milligrams per liter or
have a 75% removal by mass balance. And we know that's important because many of the inputs are very high now that we have reduced water usage and uh it may be next to impossible to actually
get to 10 milligrams per liter. But [clears throat] so we developed that whole scheme of which there's a number of other uh paragraphs that have to do with how often the their systems have to be
pumped etc. But the hooker was that we once we developed this, we went to D and sat down with Brian Dudley, who was the Southeast Regional Head at that point, over coffee a number of times, and we said, "Brian,
uh, can we get you to comment on this monitoring scheme?" and uh we never could get PEEP out of D um which is not unusual. So uh
we then sort of turned this over to Masttec with their million-doll grant and they've been through exactly the same process. They go to D and said, "Look, here's the monitoring program we think we can make work when we've got
thousands of these things to do." uh what do you think about that? And they say it's not part of title five for eggs. We don't think anything about that. [laughter] And and so uh for us to succeed,
uh we need to go back to D, get them to the table to chat with Masttec and with the towns. And if we don't hear peep again, uh I
think politically we need to move up the food chain to Boston and apply pressure from the other end. Um one of the guy I had a long chat with Brian Bombgardler this week who's head of Masttec and he said you know you have to understand
that we're not an advocacy group. In other words they're a contracting group that does research. They're not in a position to go up and lean on D or to go legis to the legislature and ask for D
to consider this. But this is now a county problem and I believe we are going to ultimately have to get all our legislators legislators together and if we don't get any response from DP
working from this end we're going to have to start to apply pressure from the other and I think that's sort of what I wanted to convey today that those two things thinking about the phasing and
than getting a monitoring program. And the and the goal with the monitoring program and when George and I worked on it eight years ago with this model, uh, we could get the cost per household per
year to be comparable to what people are paying for sewer charges that are hooked to sewers now. And I think that should be our goal. In other words, uh if if people and I don't know, Amy, what the average
sewer charge is now, but uh I think that's the sort of number we want to be aiming toward. And eight years ago, we thought we could do that, but it's going to require a monitoring program that
allows uh remote sensing. The nitro system for instance, you can sense whether the air pump is working and that's going to tell you a whole lot about how well that system's doing. In in our proposal, we had one actual site
visit to each uh IIA every year to examine uh just the above ground things. And anyway, if you go back through that uh uh and I there are copies of that u
you can see what that whole program looked like. And I thought it was pretty well designed and something that uh we should be able to get D to agree to. >> Thank you, John. Comments from the board.
Steve Leightton. >> Two uh first I think John makes all good points and I just wanted to comment on two of them. First um his phased installation plan
makes sense. It's also one of the strongest arguments I've ever heard for the point that George Toplos made that there are people with IAS, people with sewers and people with neither one when he said that you would have say you might have those within 200 feet
required and then out to 800 ft might or might not be required. You want that to be a cost to the town. You want the town to have skin in the game. Otherwise, it's too easy to say,
"Oh, we'll solve that by forcing a x more people to have IAS and it won't cost the town anyway anything." Um, and the other unrelated point as far as the the monitoring, there was a young man in here a year ago
or so. I he's either with Mass Tech or with some connection to the county government, uh, offering to set up an RME. Um, I think we should treat him, we should act like a hard-nosed purchasing
department and treat him like a vendor. Uh, and politely ask for a proposal. [clears throat] And if he says, "Well, for what?" I said, "For whatever the appropriate monitoring is." And if he doesn't know what the appropriate monitoring is, that
tells you something. It's like when you go into a store, if the people in there don't know anything about the product that you're looking for, you typically consider a different store. And um it would also motivate him and
the people he works with to put pressure on D that John correctly says we need. Well, that person was from Masttec and the very problem I'm suggesting is that they have not successfully been able to go to D and negotiate a monitoring
program like the one we proposed that would be coste effective. So that we in conjunction with MASTEC have got to get D to the table and to pro get them to agree to a monitoring
program. That's uh >> totally I I don't I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. I'm just trying to add to it. [clears throat and cough] Ed, >> I I think the um yes, it was a gentleman
that was new to the mastc that gave the presentation. They had a proposal for an RME. They even estimated it might cost $1,000 per year per system for the monitoring. It was basically to meet the existing DP
requirements four times a year for two years. If it's meeting criteria, then it yodas twice a year. But it was a centralized program that all towns hopefully would go on board with that would do it. But the monitoring would be according to the D current schedule to
change D. I don't think I got enough years left but I'm willing to try. Uh but that's one point. The other is I I think it's very important. John, you earlier you mentioned how what Barnstable as a town
is doing is they have an RME as part of their municipal structure in the DPW. Did I understand that correctly? >> They they are proposing to do it within the DPW. They have not yet done it >> and there is no way that with the
current D monitoring schedule that is in title five that we can afford to do this. In other words, if we have to do it four times a year, uh we we're it makes it impossible. We've got to have a
reduced monitoring scheme of this ilk in order to be able to make it work. >> Yeah, I I think the the concept is good to reduce the frequency on a more random sampling basis statistically valid. Um
but getting D to change their mindset, God bless us, that's going to be quite a task. Uh the other thing I would suggest as we go forward with this is that we are be be in close communication with what are other communities doing that
are impacted by this. Um Barnstable, you helped me to understand it. It's a concept. I know MASHP put in a mandate a th00and feet from any impaired water body which encompasses most of the town and their RME is non-existent. They put
the onus on the homeowner and the contractor that engineered and put in the system and report the data to Barnstable County i.e. Masttec basically and that's it. That's their RME. I don't know what any other town is doing. I I
did talk with MASHB via their select board chair current chair and that's what they're doing. They they don't have an RME. The other question I would wonder is there's somewhere in the 300 neighborhood of IAS already in Falmouth. Who if anybody is monitoring that and
and what are we seeing? So, so Ed, the very distinct difference between what we've got at the moment and what will be required from D is mandating that we either put IAS in
the whole town or we develop watershed plans. >> We have chosen to do the watershed plan. But it's not we are going to be held accountable by D. So, it's not enough to to uh send some
data to Mass or the county. We're going to have to annually send data to the state that says the plan that we've made for this watershed meets the requirements that we state.
We're going to remove the amount of nitrogen. So annually, I would assume annually or semianually or at some regular period, we're going to be required as a town to report to DP that what we've done is working and that's
distinctly different than what's happening at the moment. >> Right. So you're saying this is in compliance to comply with the watershed management plan that we are going to develop. We will need to do something different
with D than what we currently do for the existing IAS. And that makes sense. >> The existing IAS could D could care less what they're doing. >> Our board of health cares what they're doing, >> but D doesn't. They don't monitor uh
what's what an IIA is doing once we install it. Um and that's the real difference here. What is it? >> So So let me let me jump in here a little bit. So the D does not move
quickly as we are all very well aware but I will give a point of reference. So over the last five or six years, the lead and copper rule having to do with whopper water came in and um a lot of
communities pushed back about the fact that having to go and look at every single water service to determine that there was no lead pipes in their system, you know, was kind of ownorous and and
and you know, getting get from 60% to 70 whatever was ownorous. and and the DP over the last six or eight months has adopted a more statisticalbased approach like if you've looked at a thousand services out of your 20,000
services and found nothing in its representative the likelihood that you'll find more is pretty low and you can move to a plan that to do something different in terms of where you change out water meters check on the water services or whatever. So the DP
has not yet had to face what I would say is thousands and thousands of IIA systems on the cape and what to do about it. So we need to stay focused to say to them,
John, as you pointed out, measuring every single service, every single thing over and over is not going to tell us if it's working. To my way of view, there's two things that tell me if it's working. If the water quality in the receiving
water body starts to see a decrease in nitrogen because people have put these things in, we're getting where we get to go need to go to. If the eel grass comes back and I think you somebody told me there were crabs and fish in in the pond at the
little pond, >> when we get the biology coming back, we get there. Okay. Um, so we need to stay focused and keep this on the top of our agenda with the D and push through Mass Tech or whoever else that
hey folks over the next two to five years we're going to be pushing on people to put these things in and we can't just keep going with measuring four times a year and sending the data off to the to the county because it's not going to get us
there. Okay. So we need to develop a program. We need to get smart about it and and and get it done. That's me audience. No, Ken, go ahead. >> Yeah. So first of all, I want to be sure I'm understanding correctly. So I think what John, what you're really saying is,
okay, there's two parts to this. One is collecting the data, but two is consolidating it into an estimate of whether we're meeting the TMDLs. And that's those are two kind of different functions. That's one of the functions of the RME, >> right? That that we would allocate. So
then and there's so many things wrapped up in this. The other the the second thing is is we talk about altering DP's approach which it seems like there's 15 towns on the Cape that are dealing with
this to try to each lobby D might not be as nearly as effective as [clears throat] if we can find some common ground and and you know it's kind of a political process there. >> Yes. Uh, and the third thing I was curious about is
a, you know, Amy as the professional out there, you know, there might be a role here to play for for the town, but what do you think about that? I mean, obviously would require increase in staff and all that, but I'm curious as to whether this is
something that just >> out of hand. You're saying we should never do that or whether >> I realize you're calling Amy up, but part of this is is this border health or is this wastewater or is this RME? You know, this is this is this is this is
part of the commission. >> But who should be the army? I mean, if we did it way barnable, you're saying >> separate separate entity inside DPW. >> It could be army like an adjunct to the board of health, >> right? Obviously, but I mean, someone who actually works within the town
infrastructure. I know you've done that, but >> I have not. I haven't done anything in my life. >> Uh I had a couple of things. One is um so a lot of what you're talking about tonight is uh is is all very important
to the watershed management plan that the that will be prepared over the next year. So the the cost issues you were talking about how the town manages cost and and also this the long-term monitoring and the RM all of this is the
town is going to over the next year put together a um a watershed management plan and it will include a long-term manage management plan and it will have to include um an an identified RME and
so we need to be having just this kind of discussion and follow-ups over the next over the next year. Um, so we get to the point where we we know what we're proposing and the or we know what we want to propose and then the the agencies are going to respond to this.
We'll have we'll have a watershed management plan. We'll have an EIR and we will get regulatory feedback on that and at the end of the process we will when we're ready apply for permits. So through that, I mean, we don't need to get we don't need to really get um I
think it's helpful to talk with the D ahead of time and, you know, make let them know this is where we're heading and try to get their feedback, but in the end, we're putting out putting together a plan and they'll have to react to it through that um watershed
management plan EIR review process. um specifically about RME. Um so for what it's worth, my personal feeling is that I would prefer to have it be an outside um entity um um like
the county if they're if they're willing or even a um hire even hire just have the town hire somebody to do that hire a a company to do that work. Um uh you know well to be to be continued there's there's a lot more to talk
about. Barnstable County has a very different DPW than than we do. They have a gigantic engineering firm with or engineering firm engineering department that is almost like its own engineering firm and um they're really they are set
up to with a different >> county or the town of Barville. >> I'm sorry the town of Barsville. I said county. >> Should we knew what she meant? Come on. >> I meant town. The town of Barnstable has a very large engineering department set up almost like its own engineering firm and they have a different capacity uh
than the town Falmouth's DPW does to to take on additional work. So that's my my take on it at this point, but uh as I said to be to be continued. C >> can I ask Amy a follow-up question? >> Sure. >> Is it a short one? >> Yes. The answer might be long, but um
isn't it true that the scary part of the watershed plan is that it might be approved [laughter] >> because then we have to do what it says and to what level of detail do we have to say in that plan
about who the RMA will be? In other words, you have to don't you have to have made that decision as you write before you finish writing the watershed plan. >> Yeah. I I think I think we're we're doing a good thing. We're heading in the
right direction. I think I think it's um I think I think it's going to be a good a good outcome. I'm not I don't [laughter] I'm not worried that they >> You're not speaking to my question. >> You want to know if I'm worried? Will will the watershed plan
>> is the requirement on the watershed plan >> it says to identify >> specify how you're going to do the RME >> it says you have to identify an RME it doesn't say >> so that decision has to be made by the time you finish writing that plan long
before it's approved or not because it might be approved >> we will have to jump in I'm going to jump so inside the comprehensive wastewater management plan inside a lot of other plans, Steve. Things that are [snorts] very known and specific get put in. But because of the timeline of putting these
things together, and who knows where RMEs really are, I think the town's going to acknowledge that an R is needed and probably give some level of um definition to what they think the Army
should be responsible for or do. But all the details of the RA will are unlikely over the next year to be worked out because there's so many variables around the RA. Okay. >> Okay. >> I agree with that. That's obviously all I'm going to get from you to
>> Well, you're asking for some that's a fair enough answer. >> Yeah, I I agree with Steve that we will make a lot of progress. We're not going to have the the final answer on on the details at that point. >> All right. I'm I'm going to move on from
this item in the interest of time uh because I'm always conscious of people's need to go do other things. Um reports of members and staff is next. Tom, how
are how's the uh oysters in the um in in the fisheries? >> There's tons tons of oysters. Um plenty of harvest. The West Felmouth the public's been, as far as I can tell, extremely happy. And the little guys are continuing to
sequester nitrogen, but I won't have this year's results for quite a while. And the next meeting is the same evening as this meeting, the 17th. So, I'll be here and probably catch part of
that. Okay. All right. How are we doing on um UD Steve? >> Uh we had a meeting uh we're working on the participant agreements to decide two different agreements. One from the town with the participants and one from Mass
Tax Test Center with the participants. >> How many participants do you have? >> Uh they're optimistic to getting the 50 that they want. >> That'll be good. That' be good. Ed,
>> just a couple of information points for everybody to know what else is going on out there. >> By the way, by the way, Ed gets up every morning to read the environmental monitor. >> No, just every two weeks when it comes out, but um last Wednesday in the notices of
new projects and things, they did mention the Easterly, which is the Sandwich Road 300 apartment complex. um that's proposed and kind of sitting in a bandance and they have applied evidently for a
groundwater discharge permit which is a key part of them moving forward and I think something that's going to be a tough hurdle for him but that's my personal opinion but it was published last week typically when a notice is published you can click on links and see what's being proposed and there's
nothing there's no >> no they're proposing nothing that's [laughter] that that that's clear >> all right Well, moving right along here. It It posted page four of four. Page 1, two, and three were absent. It just said there's a groundwater discharge permit
application being considered. And there were no attachments, which there typically would be, saying what is proposed. Go ahead, Amy. Um the D issued a preliminary draft um
permit and um and I commented on it. Um I I believe the the draft permit will be issued shortly if it hasn't already been issued. I can send you I will I can let you know what that is when I when I get it. >> Maybe last time I saw anything with that
they were targeting a system that would reliably make [cough and snorts] five and might make three. So the the draft permit said uh a max day of 10 and a uh best efforts to achieve five. And so my
comment was that it should be best efforts to achieve three, >> right? Um and um so I I don't remember the time frame, but I I believe they it's basically what they issued as a fairly standard it's a standard groundwater discharge permit except that
they have this best efforts to achieve five milligrams per liter total nitrogen. Um so I will um I will find out when the when the new permit is either will be issued or already has been issued and get it to this group.
Because typ typically when I see one of these notices of a project, there will be attachments that will detail what is being proposed and considered. There was nothing. There was only this page four out of 1, two, and three were absent. So
I reached out to the contact number which was listed for further information. Turns out it's a non-working number. So that really wasn't helpful. And if you think you're going to sway D, good luck. So then I did find the the the person who was the
contact analyst for this in the southeast regional thing called him. He did call back within a couple of hours which was great. And he said this is an initial application. I will get you the details um as recently as this afternoon. He said um I forwarded your
request for details to the public information person who has to release them. they have the documents and we'll respond to your inquiry. I'm holding my breath, but uh so something's going on there. It was very bizarre that there was no backup posted because always
there is. I I look at this thing and I've been doing it for 15 odd years every two weeks when it comes out to see what projects are out there that might be of interest to me personally or to specifically the town of Fallon. But anyway, so that's one point of information. And the other thing I did since I had this young man's ear at the
D office is something I brought up before is um IA performance data that is different in the D website from what Masttec has and he forwarded that to another analyst
who happens to be the key point person Caroline Adamson in the Boston office and she's the point person evidently on IA a systems and she clarified why there's a difference in the data. They actually get all the data that they
look at for giving general use approval or best available nitrogen reduction technology approvals through mastc. So it's the same data source. However, Masttec when they analyze their data uses a median which shows a better
performance level for particularly the the nitroe uh than DP's performance because they use average and then she very nicely gave me the detail how do you get best available certification
and it is very specifically average not median 90% of the systems reporting have to meet the level they're asking for whether it's 10 or 19 or 25 for them to say yes you have approval.
So there's a difference in methodology but I'm going to put my money on well they're not going to get approved unless they meet D's criteria. They're not going to care about median they're going to care about average. So, the good news is I did get some great information and if anybody really wants to get the
details, contact me and I'll share that. But I won't bore the whole committee with all of that stuff. But that's what I got. >> Ken, anything on Little Pond you want to say? Well, just that uh I guess coming up December 10th, right, Amy and I are going to talk at the aquatic brewing
cipcience uh event uh about future of sewering at Felmouth and what we've found out uh uh in terms of the effectiveness of that su the sewer so far in Little Pond
>> conveniently a week from tonight. >> So come and have a beer and What time? >> What time is it? I What time is it? I don't remember. It's like 5:00 or something or >> It's early.
>> It's cocktail hour. >> I was just trying to find that in my emails. What time it was? Cocktails from 5 to8. My phone number when I was growing up was 5280. cocktails from five to eight. Oh, also
the number of feet in a mile. Random random thoughts here while you're looking these these the time up. Maggie, >> I'm just going to make a plug for an event at Aquatic Brewery starting in about 10 minutes. CPWB is organizing an
a get together including letter writing to the joint committee on revenue in support of House Bill 4082. So anybody can stop by. >> Yay. 4082 converts it from
this is the this is the House bill to make it so that people can get some money towards putting an IIA in. Thank you, Maggie. >> So, it's 5:30. >> 5:30. >> All right. >> 5:30. >> Next item on the agenda is to vote
minutes of prior and it says plural meetings. I think we only have one meeting. >> I move that they be >> Oh, I'm checking. >> Is it one meeting or we have more than one minute? >> One. Okay. Only one one meeting. >> I move that they be approved as written.
>> Second. All those in favor signify by saying >> I I. >> All right. And then um a motion that there can be no debate on. >> Can I get a motion? >> Move to second. >> All right. Thank you, gentlemen.