[Music] But if we don't get out by 600, Tom will be departing for a personal uh
obligation with his family. So, we keep it moving along. Tom can tell us that the minutes are good or we could do the minutes first. Tom, you want to do the minutes first? Do it up. >> It was fine with me. I assume everybody had a chance to sift through them with the ultra fine.
>> I move that they be accepted as written. >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor of accepting them as written, >> I second. Thank you. >> All right. All right, we'll now come back to our regular agenda. Um, we are welcoming Josh Wrigley uh to to the
meeting. Uh, you have to come up to the podium, Josh. Josh is the town's resiliency coordinator. I met briefly with them, told them that at least one of our committee members was interested in learning more about the Oyster Bond Project plus
get to know you a little bit and then to the extent that we have to work with you or for you or whatever, uh, we can do that. We are an advisory board for Miss Lechman, we don't set policy, but we recommend policy. >> Great. Can everyone hear me? >> Yes.
>> Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Uh, as was just stated, my name is Josh Wrigley. I'm Falmet's new coastal resilience specialist and uh, at the request of the chairman, I uh, I'm a I'm before you this afternoon just to talk a little bit about the oyster pond restoration
project that's going right now um, off of West Falmouth Harbor. Um, so what I'll do is just give a very brief overview of the project and then if anyone has any questions about it um, I can field those then for you. So, um, the oyster pond restoration is a, uh, is
a project that's been a collaborative effort between the town of Falmouth, uh, NRCS, uh, Cape Cod Conservation District, and APCC. Um, over the last number of years, it's received its, uh, funding from a couple different sources.
And uh at this current time, APCC is working off of a Noah transformational habitat grant that is funding the project through the permitting stage. And right now, um engineering consultant Fussen O'Neal has developed uh plans for
the new culvert that um should take it up through permitting. Um after that they're going to be seeking more funds for construction and also further design of the restoration portion of the project that would take place in upstream sections of um Oyster Pond um
in about 3 acres of salt marsh that lie at the the northern end of the pond there. Um but the the main goal of the project though is to restore an undersized culvert that acts as a title restriction. Uh right now the culvert is
3.8 feet in diameter and what is proposed is a 5 foot by six foot box culvert with natural substrate bottom and what that will do is improve the um tidal flow in that area. Um introduce greater salinity to upstream portions of
um oyster pond that have seen water quality deteriorate in the last number of years. And uh this should serve to help um combat the spread of fragmitees, the uh invasive reed um as well as help restore salt marsh habitat and also
finish and shellfish um habitat as well due to the uh the water quality. Um, APCC has conducted uh quite a bit of work up to now establishing um some baseline figures in the Harborhead area and in Oyster Pond itself measuring
dissolved oxygen, salinity, um water levels and and all of that data is now um being used as they as they get towards the permitting process which will need to go through several stages at the local, state, and federal levels.
So, I think I'll I'll leave it right there and if uh anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Josh, are there any projections as to what the title amplitude will be upstream of the culvert on the land side?
>> It'll vary. Um it'll it'll improve the flood storage capacity of that inland side of the bike path there. Um but um depending on sea level rise effects and then also storm surges on top of that um
it it could vary >> and that's something they're kind of looking at right now um which is the extent to which heightened water levels may affect um some portions of the um
the coastal bank that uh lines the pond. So, um, we have a project, uh, to put PRBs in, uh, at what's called Snug Harbor. Um, that's we're relatively close to the grant being finalized. Correct, Kristen? >> I haven't heard anything.
>> Yeah, but we put all of our stuff in and they've indicated they've given a favorable. So, I think we'll be interested as you move along what you go through to permit work on the bike path since we're going to have to decide whether we're doing using the bike path or the roadway.
>> Yep. >> In that area, >> right? >> Um and uh I think you touched upon the title thing. I guess how are you going to measure the success of like restoring different biological populations in the
oyster pond? Well, the APCC is going to be looking at that through the baseline data that they've collected already. And uh and I think what they'll be um you know, really kind of focusing on is the health
of uh high marsh um uh vegetation. if they see some um native species that are um you know well suited to that habitat begin to come back as you get more tidal flushing and as they kind of flesh out the restoration portion of their
project. Um they're looking to use runling in select instances to try and drain a couple of um uh portions where there has been dieback to encourage more vegetative growth in those areas. um while also preserving
some that um have um populations of uh rupia maridma which is a a plant somewhat similar to eel grass um but that provides forage for um some migratory birds uh throughout the season. So um so they they'll be looking
at um you know biodiversity and uh water quality and um several other factors as well and sort of gauging the continued success there of the project. Steve, >> you there's a very clear report and you
made it clear that it's the oyster pond in West Falmouth, but I want to make sure the enterprise realizes that there are two oyster ponds in Falmouth >> and this is that one and not the one that empties into Vineyard Sound. >> Correct.
>> And and I assume there's no TMDL for this oyster pond, right? >> There is not a TMDL for the subs. A couple of questions. U >> actually just for your benefit Josh Steve just introduce yourself a little bit like your background and so that he
knows you. >> Oh um I have I'm a member of this committee obviously and an engineer and a member of the board of the other oyster ponds environmental trust.
>> Right. Pleased to meet you. >> Good to meet you. >> Look forward to working with you. introduce yourself and then ask. >> Hi, Ed Jawwick. We met at the Little Pond grand opening ceremony back in June and good to see you again >> and appreciate you coming to the committee. Um, couple of questions. Uh,
any idea timing of when you might see funding um when you would get permits a and then funding sources to actually implement and what's the estimated cost? I think I had seen figures two or three million. Is that >> Wow.
>> Yeah. I'm not sure what the uh what the construction costs would be yet, but uh right now um they're looking to go into permitting within the next couple of months. Um and then I'm not sure exactly what the
timeline would be after that, but permitting, you know, of course takes quite a while. Um so it wouldn't be uh construction wouldn't be for a ways out yet. One to two years, I would say. That's that's just an offthe cuff. >> Yeah.
>> Any particular funding sources that the group is looking at to try and I I understand they did have at one point a grant that got frozen and or defunded uh from the federal level. Are they looking at some other sources to try and move that forward? >> They're they're considering a number of
um of state grants. Uh and right now actually the uh the money that is um bringing the project forward at the moment is uh is federal money is the Noah transformational habitat grant. the uh one last question and then I'll let
somebody else ask some um inland side of the bike path and where this culvert is um and you know the flow is pretty good at tidal change in both directions >> and the things one of the things I see that kind of inhibits the flow is the
sholing on the inland side. Is there plan to dredge some of that out also and clean it? >> Yeah, that's a great question. So, as as you've seen it right now, there's a scour hole on the inland side where on the incoming tide there is a um uh
there's a back eddy that creates a lot of sediment deposition in that area. And so Fuss and O'Neal's um new proposed design is actually to realign the culvert so that it is angled
more um on a I guess sort of northeast south or northwest southeast axis. And uh actually I've got a I've got this which I can pass around here. But um that should alleviate some
of those sholing issues that uh that it experiences right now. >> Yeah. But would you actually go in and try to dredge some of what has accumulated there to uh >> I I I have a feeling that that that uh removal of sediment um you know would be
part of the project. Yeah. um as they're as they're trying to um create a coffer dam around the new site, uh establish that and then um get rid of the old one. >> Thank you,
>> Ken. >> Yeah, I don't really have any questions. Clear explanation of what's going on. So, >> thank you. >> I'm so Ken is uh one of our pre-minent scientists here. He he does a lot of
water quality work uh for the town for this committee and he has thousands of students that are willing to go out there and take such >> he regularly gets his students involved in projects. >> Yeah. >> Right. Nice to meet you. >> Waterbury senior scientist in the town
of Felmouth. >> No questions. John? >> No. Retired microbiologist. >> Recovering recovering microbiologist. Uh Josh, a couple things. Well, I'm active obviously on this committee and
on the town shellfish committee and also active with the 300 committee. I'm sort of I guess almost overcommitted. >> But um we we met doing the fencing along Surf Drive for the late Hatch of >> Yep. >> plumbers if you remember. Yeah. Um,
we've done this experiment before because there's I'm going to invent a new geomorphological term, path locked wetlands that Ducks Unlimited and some other groups funded before. Remember the little small landlocked or path locked
almost freshwater that were being overtaken by fragmitees? And I wondered, is there something about fragmitees too around oyster pond too? maybe the very upper reaches where there's enough fresh water coming in that >> but I don't know what's happened in
these other sections either. >> Right. Yeah. And I'm familiar with the uh Ducks Unlimited project that you're referring to cuz that's the culvert immediately to the south of the one at Oyster Pond here. I think Fragmitees tends to thrive in this area of Oyster Pond because it's got a lot of
freshwater inputs as storm water comes off of 28A and uh there may be other you know freshwater lenses right underneath as well that tend to uh help it too. Um but I'm not I'm not sure about that. But I'm sure that the um you know fresh
water coming in in sheet flows off the road there is probably one of the the main >> ground water too. >> Yeah. But yeah, I just I haven't seen any followup on the ducks unlimited project and wondered whether fragmitees had been pushed back a little bit or
what had happened because it's very intolerant I think of salt. >> Yeah, I'm not sure about the um the status of things uh post construction and how it's kind of fared since then with monitoring and other restoration efforts, but that's a that's a good
question. >> Yeah, John. >> No questions. Introduce yourself, though. >> Oh, yeah. I'm I'm the newest member of the committee. Uh the youngest member of the committee, maybe the least knowledgeable member of the committee
>> and uh I'm a geologist by training. >> Got a great skill set on this committee. >> Is it a town project? >> It's a collaborative project. >> Yeah. But the town as the town is ultimately responsible for the project. Is that correct?
I would say that the the the yeah the town the town is a collaborative partner that is providing oversight and direction. >> You hired Fuss and O'Neal the the U association for the preservation of Cape Cod did not
>> well they they hold the grant. So they uh >> they do hold the grant. >> They do. Yeah. >> The other contracted entity. Okay. Interesting. >> All right. One last thing. Uh Kristen maintains a list of folks that get to see our agenda via email. Would you like to get on that list?
>> Yeah, sure. >> That'd be >> that'd be great. >> Yeah. Terrific. Thank you for showing up. Thank you for introducing yourself. >> Anytime. Thank you very much for having me here. Nice to meet you all. >> Great pleasure. >> Thank you. >> Uh next item is I I'm a little remiss.
Uh, at the last meeting, um, Tom handed me a thing that says that he's still on the board. He got reappointed. Um, yeah, you got reappointed. I probably should have noted that >> without my permission. I suppose >> he's here till 2028. So,
>> yeah, >> you weren't there to complain, didn't you? >> I haven't seen a slip from Steve. If he did, he's he's got to hand it to me. >> Yeah, I got the same thing. >> Yeah, you got to give it to me. I got to get a coffee. I don't know. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay, we got a to-do now. Apparently,
I'm supposed to have these in case I ever get audited. I don't know. >> All right, moving along. Next item on our agenda is the USGS report on groundwater impact. I actually have two extra copies of them here if anybody wants to have
it. >> Yeah. Okay. I apologize now for any typos. I'm an engineer. So, this is a presentation of the USGS report on the impact of an outfall in the Sagamore lens. Quick
background a little bit around a year ago, contracted with the USGS. um they are not an advocacy agency. They're a science based agency. Um they
developed this report following certain protocol which I'll sort of walk through briefly. Um and then they had it peer reviewed. So there was a draft of this out. John Waterbury and I saw it because we've been kind of monitoring this with them. I'd say what three or four months
ago, John, it was a draft and uh a week or so ago it came out in final. Um and there were no surprises in the report. It was much as we expected, but so the report simulates the steadystate
response for two sewering options. The first one is to sewer all parcels below Route 28. It's similar to our current comprehensive wastewater management plan, but it encompasses a slightly larger area, including portions that are
currently not sewed, not planned to be sewered just because of the density of some of the downtown areas and likelihood that they'll get sewered in the future. And the second one was to establish a boundary condition. If the town was to go out and sewer the entire town,
what would happen? Um the report basically looks at the impacts on the contours of the Sagamore lens. For those of you that know what the Sagamore lenses, this will be redundant, but the Cape is a sole source aquifer. It's a series of lens going down the Cape. The
largest one is the Sagamore lens and that encompasses the area between Mass Bay, Buzzards Bay, and Vineyard Sound. uh and extends across Sandwich, Mashp, and a portion of Barnstable. As I noted before, the report was peer-reviewed and is now public. It's
available at the town web page. You can search under the phrase simulated hydraologic responses or if you're really good and can copy this down fast, that's the path. So the way they approach this is they've
looked at four different timelines, two different timelines and two different scenarios. In the upper left hand corner, the pink area is where the sewers were in the year 2010, which is the last time they looked at
sort of your overall drown waters and contours and everything else. In the upper right hand corner, the pink areas get larger because the town has now since then through 2023 has added a number of sewer areas, primarily Mara
Vista, but also the high school area as well. Um, and uh the first step they did in this is they looked at parcels and water data and everything else to try to take their model from 2010 and update it to 2023.
In other words, with these other areas of sewer and other things going on and water use and development, what does the aquifer look like? And so then, as I noted already, they had two different scenarios. The first one is in the lower left. Um,
and you can see they've drawn an area below Route 28, uh, including portions, um, down through Walker Street and all the way up to Sitter's Pond. Uh and then they looked at in the second
one the entire town. Um so they wind up in the report having a series of maps and the maps have circles and on them. What does this all mean? So this is the map showing what happened to
the groundwater from 2010 to 2023. So if you look in the upper I had a pointer but the the biggest thing to note here is that the West Falmouth wastewater treatment
has created a mound on the Sagamore lands between 2010 and 2023 at the treatment plant. That mound uh is a little bit um over 1.1 ft. As it spreads out going towards uh West
Falmouth Harbor and towards Mayor's Pond and whatnot, it drops down to a 0.1 foot mounding effect. If you look at this map for a little bit, you can see where there's a wastewater treatment facility out on Pompaness. There's a couple of circles there. You can also see the
impact of the upper Cape regional water supply which is a negative number because they're pumping water out of that portion of the aquifer now. So I'm going to show you the map for the changes with option one. I'm not going to show you the map for changes with
option two. You can go to the report and read that if you want to. However, if you look at this closely here, what you see is that the mound at the wastewater treatment plant goes away. The way they show this in the report, they show the change. They don't
show a negative number. They show that over time 0.9 to 0.1 ft change will happen around the West Val treatment plant. So we'll go back to sort of the 2010 conditions, if you will, from where we are now. The
0.1 ft line of change in the aquifer does extend across towards the east and cuts across the top of the peninsulas um where the rivers the Kunames and the child river are cut down through.
These are two maps, one for condition one, the sewers below Route 28 and one for the sewers of the entire town. The one on the left shows the contours of the lens. And you have to study this closely to realize uh that there's some
little blue lines that you know the 8 foot contour of the lens is now going to be 7.9 uh and not eight. Interestingly, when they sewed the entire town, although the impact is more noticeable, um it's far
from catastrophic. So, um, again, if you're interested in this, I ask you to get the report and read it. I I think it's fairly well written. Uh, John, you agree it's fairly well written down. So, uh, the the other thing is
what are the streamflow impacts? And I apologize that when I cut and paste, I get a very small table on the left here, but again, um, they looked at six brooks. The Kunameset, the back is the born, the child's the quashnik, and the redbrook. They're listed alphabetically,
not east to west, not not west to east. For the Kunameset river, on average, the flow in the river will be 0.1 ft lower because of of the water being diverted off to the outfall. For
the child's river, because it's further away, it's almost unmeasurable. It's 0.03 feet. And if you add up all of the total changes in stream flow on the table on the right, what it shows is that the current average simulated
stream flow is 45.6. It will drop to 45.3 um which is a point 0.7% change. So this is the important statement
in the USGS summary. It states overall the simulated hydraologic response of water table altitudes and stream flow in both scenarios was relatively small when compared to fluctuations that occur as a result of variations in natural
recharge. Um I think we started a couple years ago John looking at the amount of recharge into the lens. You used to compare the water rushing up the kudameset and say what the waste water is wouldn't even be
a fraction of that over time and this is this substantiates that initial um understanding. Uh this report is an appendices to our ENF. Uh a copy was distributed today to um uh the the pre
the uh association for the preservation of King Cod uh as well as to the Buzzards Bay coalition and we have a couple of other um folks that we will send it to over the next day or so. Uh one of the questions that's open and not putting this on you Doug but to the
extent that the selectman want to hear more about any of this Amy is willing to put herself on the agenda. Um, so I didn't write the report, so I'm not going to be able to answer every question that comes up, but um, at least
in my view of how we are with getting an outfall in place, we knew there were a lot of permanent steps, things having to do with Army Corps of Engineers, geological information, a lot of things. And in my mind, the one thing that could always force us back to landbased
discharge would be if we're impacting the aquifer. And this report is very scientific, very rigorous, and affirms that we are not going to ruin the aquifer or degrade it by putting an outfall in whether it's 2 MGD
or 3 MGD. Comments, questions? I'll go to Jonathan first. I guess under the scenario two where all of Falmouth is sewered um the stream flow change is about 5%. And I guess you
everybody's saying that's a relatively small value but what what's considered a large value that would start impacting let's say the solinity of great pond where uh the Mountain feeds into what what numbers we start getting concerned about because I don't have a good feel for that.
>> Yeah, that that that's a great question. um if you can email that off to to me and Amy as as response to this. We are in communication with USGS and they've looked at some of this stuff about saltwater and fresh water and I think we can get an answer.
>> Steve, I think the if you look at the annual flow through the Kunameset River, um at its peak it's 9 million gallons a day and in the summer it will drop to about three million gallons a day. And there's a huge amount of inner annual
variation. So if you look at the head of the Sagamore lens, it can have a head of 65 ft up at the peak. >> And that can vary as much as 10 feet in any given year. So there's a huge range
of groundwater flows that are coming through that system. So basically you're saying that a five foot is not to worry about but if there was a a 30 foot ch something some something >> 30% change >> yeah you know 5% 30 >> then you start changing the salinity is kind of a real problem we're nowhere
near that in a worst case scenario >> and we're not about to sewer all the >> go away sit down I can answer the questions for you okay >> yeah I guess uh The concern about saltwater intrusion to one pond is more going to be a function
of where does sea level go over time as the pond only sits six or seven feet above sea level >> others. >> Go ahead. >> No, no, you caught me on the way by. >> All right. Um, well, first I thought it
was really excellent report. Uh the the biggest change though is is in the area of the wastewater plant and that feeds groundwater down into West Felmouth Harbor and you can see
high rates of groundwater flow along the shore of West Falmouth Harbor. There's both springs and also in Mashipacet Creek. So they talk about the impact on the south coast estuaries and rivers. They don't really talk about mashupac
or westmouth harbor. Decline and freshwater input to westmouth with harbor might actually be a positive thing since that's carrying uh nitrogen into the harbor. So I wonder if maybe they could >> I mean I realize this is the final
version, right? But >> could there be any agenda or anything that addresses that that issue? >> I I I guess as I read the report, I saw that with over time we've artificially added water,
>> right? >> And now we're going back to the 2010 or the more historical flow of water to West Almouth Harbor. >> You don't think there was mounding in 2010? If there was, it was very small. Okay.
>> Because in 2010, the flows were about 180 80,000 max. They're now 500,000, >> right? But the town has a nice record. So, this is all modeled, right? >> Yeah. The town H has a network of upgradient wells all around the spray
irrigation site and downgradient from the plant which uh there's lots of information on the throughout the '9s um on the on the water table levels and
uh we did some analysis of that and we saw mounding measurable mounding back even in those days. So, you know, if there's any way to to get a little information on that >> in here, it would be great, >> but it it doesn't bear on the question
of whether we're going to get saltwater intrusion or any of that. It's it's, you know, the I mean, one key number in here that I I saw was the total water withdrawal is 7%, I think is what they said of annual recharge.
Um, so >> that >> that's 7% for the whole the for scenario two. >> If you sued the entire town, >> well that's what we use in water annually. >> Oh, our withdrawal. Yeah, we we
>> our withdrawal. That's what we use. >> We withdraw 7%. >> Right. >> But but we put it all back in. >> We put most of it back. I think it's more like 80%, right? there's 20% consumptive use >> or vapor transpiration or whatever. Um
so that we wouldn't be putting that back under the full scenario and under the partial scenario. um you know as you said it's a it's a much smaller number that is being diverted
from recharge but um but I think where you might see some interesting effects is is in the freshwater flow under west. >> Yeah. Steve, can I say yeah Tom
>> about the if I remember right it's is it 1.7 foot decrease in the height of the hump right 1.7 ft and right now it's about 50 ft above sea level is that right probably >> at the top I forget what the contours
are but it's in that >> it's in that range >> range so it should be pretty easy to figure out if you reduce the hydraulic head by 1.7 ft >> what the change at sea level should be assuming
conditions there are constant. I think they could very easily tell you right away what the change might be. I think it's going to be small. Initially I was thinking it was going to be a much bigger deal because it was going to delay the arrival of the final drips and drabs of moderate nitrogen groundwater
to the harbor. But I think by the time this gets done, which is like five or six or seven years from now, most of that I I hesitate to call it high nitrogen groundwater, but it's higher than normal >> will already presumably be flushed out
of the system and made its way to the harbor, I'm guessing. So it may not have any real effect on the harbor compared to what's happening already. I think um excellent report, extremely detailed. You know, my eyes were bleeding after two readings through it.
But uh this is great news. This is so significant. >> Couple of years ago when I first got on this committee and before that when people from the committee were talking about the potential for the outfall, this was a deal breakaker. If this report went the other way, the concept
was dead. And I think this is a major milestone and and I certainly appreciate the the impact it has on our ability to hopefully go forward with the permitting and eventual construction of the outfall. So this this is great news. I think it's very thorough. They could have done a lot more stuff into things
like that Ken and Tom are are referencing, but this this is a final report. This is into the record and uh it's a great step for us to move forward with the muchneeded outfall. So great >> and I I'm I'm more than willing to
collect any comments like you have Ken just put email me I'll talk with Amy there's I think there should be an opportunity at some point you know in this whole process it's going to last for another year year and a half be able to go back and say a couple of questions came up is it easy to answer by looking
at the model okay we'll get an answer one way or another >> okay >> Steve >> yes John >> would you mind putting the slide up that had the major contours Is that the one you want, John? >> Uh, no. Go the one before that.
That's the change with >> So you see what's really happening there is we're reverting the mound at the treatment plant to pre pre-treatment plant conditions, >> right? And if you notice then we have u
loss of mounting on the peninsulas and that's because we're removing 20% of the fresh water recharge from each of those peninsulas as we sewer because that 20% is not going into
septic systems. So those are the areas where you have the greatest impact because we're really reversing uh what we're doing uh in those those major areas.
But otherwise it it's having in my reading and having followed this for a long time it's having absolutely minimal impacts on the overall recharge characteristics of the aquifer. That's for sure.
>> Hi, Doug Brown, Select Board. I can't wait to get back to my board members and share the good news. This is very exciting. So, I'm pretty happy. And I think Ken's got an interesting point about there's going to be several more years of flow still going to West Felmouth. I I thought your report uh a
couple of months ago about the potential for a permeable reactive barrier at the point where that was entering was really good and interesting. Is any more work happening with regard to that? >> Yeah, I >> defer to Kristen. >> But >> okay, >> I sort of touched upon that Doug earlier
that we've been we've been basically told that our our application is a good application. Um we have filled it out. We've indicated in kind services from the DPW uh to meet the grant requirements and now we're just awaiting
a final word from them uh on the status of that grant. But you know, I don't want to say we have the grant yet because we don't have the grant yet. Uh grant funding and money is um moving target these days. Uh >> but all indications are that we have a
good project, a project that they see value in. Um and Ken has done quite a bit of sort of ground work with ISO already. >> Um >> well Kristen's, >> you know, work on this. So that we're I
think we're well positioned. >> Thank you. >> And yeah, and is also I mean it was a three, >> you know, threeperson effort. I you know I'm I'm the person who's not the PRB expert but I have learned that you know if there's a concentration of
in a certain location a PRB might be a good solution and the fact is there's enough groundwater monitoring wells that there's a very definite flow from the wastewater plant >> to Snug Harbor and what how long was it was 400 feet 500 ft that
>> it's 250 ft >> 250 ft >> you know if we could just put in a plug. If we do get the funding, the final funding, if we could get just a little bit more, we could make it a little longer. It would be nice to have it be uh more like 350 ft or something. But
>> my view always on this project has been that rather than wait for 15 or 20 years for everything to flush out once we have an outfall in place, even though we've knocked down the concentration coming out of the treatment plant, we're still discharging nitrogen at three. You know,
this would help. You know, the permeable reactor barrier is probably going to have an roughly a 20 year life. You'll have to get some, >> right? >> You know, >> but it appears that the travel time from the disposal sites is on the order of a decade or more. So, if you stop all the
input tomorrow, you still got 10 years for everything to flush out. If you stop everything seven years from now, you've got 17 years. >> And it seems like it's longer than we think over there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The initial guess guest estimates turned
out to be optimistic, >> right? >> But yeah, this way here, you know, I refer to as getting rid of the legacy. >> Well, we let's wait and see if we actually get this, >> right? the following year. >> Yeah, >> Steve.
>> Yeah, a comment part of what Ken just said. Does the following make sense that since Ken mentions it would be nice to have money to do more that at least in the permitting and design, you get permitting for the longer length and
then maybe you only build 75% of it with the money you get, but you keep the permit. >> Sure. and understand you can do the other 25% later if and when you get the money >> like we do with the alpha. >> Yeah, I think that's reason. That's a good suggestion.
>> You must be an engineer. >> All right. >> Any other comments? >> Oh, I got you on target. >> We're doing great. We're doing great. We may keep you on as chairman. Uh, I doubt
that. >> We were going to surprise you with that. >> Yeah, I bet you were. >> Steve, the next item, right? >> If you say so. >> Well, you asked to have a discussion on best available nitrogen reducing technology for septic systems.
>> Uh, this is an abbreviated version of what was sent out in the email. Actually, Kristen sent this out today, but you might not have gotten it. >> Did you get one, John? >> I've got it digitally. I don't need a hard copy. >> If you want a hard copy, or maybe you
already have it. I get it. Everybody has it. Okay. Um the one that was sent out initially uh half or twothirds of that was solved very neatly when Steve Rafferty
uh showed me the title five definition of best available nitrogen reducing technology and it's any system that achieves 10 milligrams nitrogen per liter or less. So that's very clear and
I needn't have worried about how you handle other imagined systems that could be on the margin with different price tags. But I still think there should be a discussion
of this with respect to um urine diverting systems if and when they get through a pilot stage. And if they're declared equal to other BANRT
IAS, then there's no problem at all. They're just another IIA. Uh if you like that sort of thing and you want to save money, you'll get one. The planning process doesn't need to know how many of each will be chosen since they would all meet BNRT.
I personally think this is unlikely to happen, but it would be wonderful if it did and it's out of our control. The tough case that requires thinking about is if they're found to remove nitrogen but not
enough for D to declare them as best available nitrogen reducing technology. And let's assume that the performance is significant enough that they can't be ignored uh or that the difference can't be
ignored but that there is substantial nitrogen removal then how do you regulate them? What how do you work them into a watershed plant? And I'm just interested in hearing everybody's comment on that because it
involves fairness to the people that want UDs and fairness to the people that don't want them and are spending more on something that actually does meet the BNRT. How do you handle the people that want to save money by not pulling their
full share? >> What is PNR? >> Excuse me. Excuse me. You you usually we take take comments from >> but that's a reason >> best available nitrogen reduction technology >> best available nitrogen reduction technology.
>> It's a term used to distinguish IAS that actually work well enough to be interesting and bad ones that are out there on the market. In other words, you can't put in a cheapo one and pretend that it's removing nitrogen. It has to
actually work and work quite well. There are two of those on the market now or soon will be >> two of them in provisional status. >> Provisional status like is >> we'll presumably get general as soon as they get enough units installed.
>> They have enough units installed. They just the clock they just wait for the clock to clock. >> All right, Tom. >> Yeah. Um I I think the thing that we really need to think about here is the nature of the monitoring program.
They're going to have to be monitored whether it's quarterly or whatever the case might be. And I think you have to say to the homeowner if you want your UD thing to qualify for best available status, this is the standard you have to
meet. And if you can't meet it, say the first six months, first two sampling periods, you've got to have a more rigorous urine diversion program. >> Oh. Oh, yes. But I'm making the assumption that there the pilot program
finds that even if you install a good American standard of of the company, >> right, >> you're in diverting toilet in every toilet in your house, >> right? That's in general it doesn't meet the 10 milligram standard at your septic
tank. >> Steve, can you hypothesize a value? Do you think it makes 14? >> Well, I don't know. Let's let's say that it >> let's say okay sure let's say it meets 14 >> okay I just I want to have >> so yeah but well I've done the
calculations so >> yeah I mean urine diversion I mean that's where the vast majority of the nitrogen is in the waist stream >> right and and if you're diverting the urine even I don't know 50% of it or
something I think you're going to get a a pretty good number. It's just that you have to be consistent and I think you have to put the burden on the homeowner who's asking for what amounts to special cheaper pathways to meeting the mandated
standards that you're either going to have to put in more toilets or make sure that people aren't subverting the system somehow. >> So, you're saying that with Correct me if I'm wrong. I mean I I >> give John I'm going to give John the plug because he's he's going >> I just I just want to put a little
quantification in there because I've done some calculations using some of the values that are out there in literature in terms of how much urine comes out of a typical person. What's the you know the population of Falmouth and single family residents? It's 2.27 on average.
What's the concentration of urine? 8,000 milligrams per liter. When you start doing that, you realize that for a person who's doing a 100% utilization of urine diversion, they're pulling out the equivalent of 8.25 kilograms per year of nitrogen. Now, maybe that's optimistic that people aren't going to be that
rigorous, but even if they're only doing half of that, they're still pulling out four kilograms per year of nitrogen per household under that scenario of measuring the amount of the fluid that's coming out. not using any relationship to how much water is being used, but
just purely the tank urine and values they've got for people. >> The number is significant. >> I got I'm going to just give you a slight caveat on that. So with D has referred to different things meeting
certain values, they always take into account there's some uh attenuation of nitrogen in the ground on its way to the estuary. So in conversations I've had with mass tech
around this, they agree that the final number the D or mass tech or somebody's going to say yeah we're removing 4.2 at this location that's equivalent to two and a half or three just to stay
stay with your four number for now. Okay. at the estuar that that still doesn't change the fact that it's a >> it's still a significant number. But if you're measuring performance in the tank and the person the homeowner is actually >> trying to rigorously follow the usage of
this urine diversion system, you'll show a large number of urine being or nitrogen being removed. I get I understand the D calculation and Kristen uh educated me on how there's probably going to be some sort of fractional number that's used of that 8 kilogram,
but it's a significant amount of nitrogen. >> Let me but have you carried the calculation further to get I I mean I grant you that that's a wonderful way to calculate it and in many ways it makes more sense than what D does, >> right?
>> But we have to follow the D rules. What happens >> I really >> to the numbers if you mix that with typical water household water flows what do you get in terms of milligrams per liter
>> I want to give the select >> I took ground select board again so it's my understanding and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong but I I think that what they've done is changed the whole dynamic of we're not going to do the study now they've decided that they're going to delegate the respons
responsibility for keeping track of the urine that's collected to the US uh Department of Agriculture. And so you're going to have septage haulers that are going to go to each location and they're going to keep a book of where they go and how much stuff they remove and
that's going to be logged in and we're going to get a credit for the aggregate amount of urine that's diverted. But what I see as a problem for the plan of what's coming out of the state leadership is that they're still
insisting that these things will be deployed in nitrogen sensitive areas as defined in the mass estuaries project. So which is counter counterintuitive because we don't really want to stick urine diversion in the sewer planted areas because then what are we going to
do now? we're only hurting ourselves of meeting the TMDL because on the other hand, they're also not requiring that all units in the house be converted. They're saying do one if you want. Let's see what you get. And so I I see a real
problem with the way the the state is handing it back to us. So I wonder if you guys will take that up and come up with a a better plan. So there is a urine diversion working group leazison what is it called
>> leazison group you leazison group that's through the mass tech Peter Johnson stab is the our point person Steve's on that they they're the folks that are working out you know what's the agreement going to look at like you know what's the requirements one one bathroom all bathrooms things like that
>> so we're a little bit out of it um but Steve because he's on it got into this >> let me respond to, you know, >> everything you said, Doug, is is correct, except I'm looking past the the pilot project. You're right. There are some hurdles we have to some problems we
have to solve with it, making that relevant, and but I'm looking past that to an imagined projected permanent implementation of this after the pilot project. when we have the data
from the pallet project and we know whether they've been approved as best available nitrogen reducing technology or not. >> I thought that was out the window. I thought we weren't doing the project. >> No. So that that's the first thing you said. I I don't think that's correct.
The unless something's changed, right? Brian Mass Alternative Septic System Test Center and Brian Horsley are funded as I understand it >> by the state to do a study on 25 households. >> Well, we just Yes. Yes.
>> Brian says it's yet to be determined. >> You're correct that D has said >> forget using it as BRT. >> Just measure it the way you said and take credit. Yeah. >> And I want to move this discussion to
how you take the credit because I think that it's still problematical, but I don't want to jump there prematurely. But Brian still has hopes that it might be approved as BANRT, >> right? >> If it is, there's it's it's unlikely,
but it's wonderful. It it simplifies it. It's just as good as an IIA, >> right? >> You don't need Jonathan's excellent calculation. It's by definition D has in that in that scenario which I don't think will happen but I'm not ruling it out.
>> How do you know? >> By definition it's that's what that scenario is that it's approved as a BNRD. The interesting case is what do we do if it's not? >> And the other problem is what if we do with all the ones that we deploy in the sewer planning areas?
>> Well, that's you you wouldn't put them there. But that's where they're headed right now because that's the nitrogen sensitive area as defined in the estuaries project. >> Brian claims not to be worried about that. He only needs 25 people. >> All right. >> Right now
>> and and I see that quite frankly as the job of the proponents, the avid well-known proponents in this community >> who think that everybody and their brother is going to go for this technology. Mhm. >> The least they can do is find a f 25
people outside the sewer area to volunteer given a subsidy. If >> they can't do that, it's hard to predict that a substantial meaningful number of people in the town would want it. >> So, you think it's still possible for people outside of the designated
nitrogen sensitive areas to participate in the study? >> Because I got >> there's there's plenty of sensitive areas that aren't sewer. the IIA geob the watershed the geo boundaries that >> it's the IIA geo >> I want to try to control this conversation yeah
>> okay >> all right >> um my my sense Doug is that they are focused on finding 25 homes inside nitrogen sensitive areas >> outside the sewer planning area >> outside the sewer planning area
>> that would be great >> okay I because Kristen you sent some information back and forth >> so there were four homes I think that getting excluded because of the way they fell. So they're trying to narrow that down. >> I I just want to touch on kind of a key point here between
best available control technology and IA systems and nitrogen reduction. So the DP has said if you raise oysters we will give you credit for nitrogen reduction based upon measuring the weight.
>> Okay. They have said if you reduce the amount of fertilizer we'll give you credit for the amount of fertilizer. Orleans has reduced a ton of fertilizer on a couple of golf courses. So it's a measurement. I look at urine
diversion. You know right now if you have put an IA system in it gets permitted by the board of health here. You got to measure four times a year and it's operating where it needs to operate. I would hope that your inversion is going to say you got to measure what you take out and you got to
measure the concentration of the nitrogen in there and do the math and say we just removed. So it's a nitrogen reduction technology get into IIA and how it fits in with waiverss if you go down that path before you have to do the next step
>> where people are still wrestling with. >> Okay. Right. >> Sounds good. >> Did I miss anything? >> Well, that's true. the the the philosophical, legal, political problem that still remains is that you cannot predict that amount. Again, I'm jumping onto a permanent implementation. I'm not
talking about the pilot project. >> I'm talking when you have a substantial number of people doing this. If you don't have a substantial number, why are we wasting all our time talking about it? >> Right. Um, and in that case, Steve is right that
you can measure. In fact, it's one of the neat things about urine diversion is you have collected it in a tank instead of letting it go through the ground and measuring some arcane number. You've got the volume and you've got the concentration. So, you know the
kilograms of nitrogen. Mhm. >> But now, how do you use that number and what what what I was trying to get to with with John was given that 4 kg or 8 kilograms you're talking about with given water flow,
what is that equivalent to? I mean, how do we compare that to the the IA 10 milligrams per liter? >> Do you know the answer? >> I didn't do that calculation. I was just looking on the >> but that way we'd be comparing in the same unit
>> but well what I'm comparing it to is for an IIA or a sewer system we assign 2.7 and 4.4 four let's say for great pond kilograms per year for a single family residence what I'm saying is for single family residence that uses 100% urine diversion the number is is larger
>> okay Ken >> yeah so couple of questions actually so if in a typical installation um where someone might put in a UD they're still going to have to have a septic system for solid waste right
>> right and for gray water and everything else. >> So the I would presume that the basic amount of water used is the same, but you're not putting in that 9 or 8 kilograms per year of nitrogen, right?
Uh that's a smaller volume that's going off in concentrated format in urine somewhere else. So, you know, I think if if these fixtures, whatever they are, um,
are diverting all the waste that isn't urine into the standard septic tank, you will see a very substantial decline in the concentration. And if the criteria, which I believe is the way it's done, is you look in the D
box and you see what's the concentration uh in the liquor coming off this, >> right? And that's going to be done in the pilot study. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh >> and it's proposed that it would be done in a permanent implementation. >> Yeah. So I mean I'm kind of optimistic
that it will look quite good. Um you know, we we can it's not hard to do a spreadsheet calculation of that. If you look at >> and and John just actually did answer my question by saying it's more that's all I need to know and you're predicting
>> if it's 100%. Now if you start using other toilets that are just taking the urine into a standard septic system then it's going to be less. the percentage of that urine that's captured. >> Fair to assume that if you were telling the town you're not going to spend 30 or
$40,000 on an IIA like all your neighbors are going to be doing that you'd better put in all toilets, not for the pilot project, but for permanent implementation because otherwise you could clearly cheat, >> right? >> Don't use the word cheat. That that's
that's an opinion and again the committee you're on is working out those rules. But I think Steve's point, if I understand correctly, is >> so so if it then qualifies as best available nitrogen removing technology
after the analysis is done, we're golden because >> right, >> there'll be a strong incentive for people to do this because they will save tens of thousands of dollars. >> It would even be in the town's interest to pay them more, >> right?
because you're getting more benefit. >> Well, you wouldn't necessarily have a three-way conversation. >> But if but if it doesn't qualify, >> that's the interesting. >> Then you still have something that's beneficial, but there's no incentive to do it because if you're in inside of a
geo boundary where you're required to upgrade your septic system, unless you can get credit for it, you're still going to be forced to use best available nitrogen removing. That's right. Okay. And if you're not there, why would you do anything? >> Ed's next. I I do want to say one thing. >> Exactly. So
>> I think I think >> so so so just to make the final point. The final point I think Steve what you're asking is should we be thinking about a way to exempt people who do this from the IIA
requirement. Uh if it turns out that it's in that intermediate category. Um >> I'm trying not to be biased. I'm just saying there's a in principle there's a philosophical, legal, political,
economic problem that we should be thinking about. I'm not proposing any particular solution except that it should be fair and work makes sense technically. >> I I want to Jonathan has touched upon something to his calculations that you
need to understand. Jonathan's saying of a 100% of the home 100% of the toilets are urine diversion in the property it has a high probability >> of achieving you know the 10 milligrams per liter
criteria if it's only one of two it may start to slip off >> that's still a big number taking half of eight is four >> the point is you know some people can can make it that number if they do certain things and other people won't
make it and it's going to have to shake out. Ed was next. Ed has been begging me to speak then your next job. Okay. >> A a couple of points. One is just you know from from basic biology and physics only 80% of the human excreted urine uh
excreted nitrogen is in the urine. >> Right? So minimum 20% of your nitrogens is going out in solids. And you're not going to get 100% of the urine even if you do all the toilets to
a urine diverting device because some people accidentally or intentionally might mix a little urine in when they take a shower. They might excrete from both solids and liquids simultaneously. So when you flush, it's
all going to the septic system. So all that urine is going elsewhere. It's not going into the collection tank. So if you start off with a value and >> or they're at work or at school, >> well, so there's somebody else they're traveling or whatever. >> Well, that that's kind of irrelevant at
this point because we're talking about the the numbers that D currently uses. And the most you're going to get if if you're only getting 80% of the nitrogen maximum, you're not going to get to 10 milligrams per liter. You will not get
there. >> Now, one of the things that have been said over the years that all of you you just can't, you know, you're only getting 20% of that nitrogen that a person excrete at a minimum is going elsewhere. So, you're not going to get your at your debox
testing 10 milligrams per liter. you're not going to be a best available nitrogen reduction technology. The D assigns an arbitrary number to a single family home. Um, if you sewer, they give you credit towards your TMDL. If I can
ask Kristen, what is that number they give us when we sewer a house? >> It's dependent on water use. >> Okay. But in average aggregate >> for Fmouth average, it's about 4 to 4.5 >> for a single family house.
You may be able to get by collecting urine more than that. And you'd say, "Well, geez, why sewer at all? Just collect all the urine." Except the big question is, what credit will BP give
for that kilogram? Will it be 1 kilogram of credit for every kilogram collected? I'd be awful surprised because they would have to change all of their metrics and give a whole different way of determining credits towards TMDL. The other thing that would have to happen,
just talk the financial stuff. Currently, the only thing that's eligible for the state tax credit would be a mandated sewer connection or a mandated IA. So unless the urine diversion technology
is accepted as a IIA best available technology, you won't be eligible for that tax credit. And yet back over a year ago when we had a urine diversion working group that Doug was part of, Tom, myself, and a few others,
we did some estimating and said it's going to cost about 10 grand to do a fullblown 100% all toilets, urine diversion between the tank, the plumbing, and everything else. And this was based on some pretty good info from tradesmen and from the industry, what it
would cost to do urine diversion. And if you're not getting any credit for that under the state tax credit, that's all out-ofpocket cost. >> It might still be small compared to an IIA. >> An IIA is eligible for
60% of the cost of the IIA. And if that's 30,000, just to pick a number, you'll get an $18,000 credit. That 30 has been reduced by 18. you're getting a lot closer to that
$10,000 minimum to do a urine diversion. So, the benefit of doing that for a homeowner that might have just bought a piece of land for half a million dollars and tore down the shack that was on it and puts up his
million-doll construction cost mansion. I don't think a lot of folks are going to want to mess around with urine diversion to the tune of well IIA is this and urine diversions that. Yeah, I'm going with a more proven technology, more conventional use of toilets and
everything else because they're going to look at resale value in the next generation that might inherit that property. So I think it's going to be a hard sell on that basis. It's a worthwhile project just to start and develop this data that people have been clamoring for. The data already exists
out there in the world though. But we can do this project for state funds administered by Masttec. It is not a town project. It's a collaboration with Masttec. This committee is really not involved except to be kept a breast of it.
Okay, go ahead and try it. But I think social acceptance and proven performance and getting that D decree or ruling of how much credit you could possibly get is going to be a hard cell. That all being said, your request
tonight was to talk about what would our policy be? How would this fit in with our wastewater planning going forward? That's the important question, >> right? That's a assuming a whole bunch of things happen. And um >> I I'm not asking to for a vote on
anything, >> right? >> And I I I mean I I I don't see the point in this discussion of addressing whether it will happen or not. >> Um my concern is that it might happen and I want to be ready for an appropriate plan
to end. >> You're reiterating yourself, John. Um I I just wanted to go back to the basic problem has been DP has never allowed us to figure mass balance. They refused to
do that, >> right? >> And they have set up the IAS were set up for zone twos and they figured they calculated that the out output from a
septic system was 35 mg per liter and that's where they got the 19 that you had to achieve. The IAS were never set up in those zones to use be nitrogen removal systems and they've George has feller has fought
with them for years to figure out if you use mass balance. So we now know that 35 is not what's coming out of septic systems. It's 65 to 100 millgrams per liter. So if you're not using mass
balance, you're just in gaga land. And John, if you take 65 and use his number, the 20% still remains. You're at 13. So even if you put 100% urine diversion in, you're still pumping 13 up. >> So just above the 10.
>> To Steve's discussion, I think uh you know, we're putting the horse before the cart. Let's see what this pilot program produces. and it isn't going to take us long once we know what they've done to figure out how we're going to approach
it. Um, I simply am not willing to agonize a whole lot about uh the option B at this point. >> I don't want anyone to agonize. I just want to know if there are any creative ideas. I I've heard a lot of ideas about why we
shouldn't consider this at all. And I appreciate John's input that in fact I may be wrong that it's unlikely that it will reach Banner level. Um I heard John saying it's so much that even if you take Ed's 20% discount into account,
you're still ahead of the game. But and and as far as the credit and the amount going through the ground, how do they handle PRBs and fertilizer now? Do they take the actual pounds of I mean fertilizer
>> you buy it by the pound you know what you're not putting on >> I don't know how they're doing this on the links I haven't gone to their report >> they've done they they're at five years on Pleasant Bay they they've had to give >> the summary I have not looked at that that Steve but you can probably go online and find that and find out about fertilizer if you want to do that.
>> Okay. >> I want to try to wrap this up because I do want to try to move us out of here. >> No I'm I'm >> number six >> I don't expect any more out of it. something burning on this one. Okay. Uh that we're going to move into what's called reports of members and
staff. >> Um I just this is not necessarily a report from me, but it is something that I want to make everybody on this committee aware of. Uh the town of Wellfleet
um has a watershed permit at this point and it is available online. So for those of you that may be interested in what the Pleasant Bay one is kind of a a little bit of a interesting one. Um I'm going to hold up a picture. I'm going to pass it around.
But in their watershed plan, they have a picture like this. And one of the the colors is where the sewers are going to go. The other color is places they're going to have to do IAS. Okay. They had passed a regulation at the board of
health. And on July 30th, the board of health met their regulation that existed to look at changes they would likely make at it. I I would strongly suggest if anybody has the time
to go to the Wealthfle homepage, look up their plan, skim through it any way you want. It I believe it's a good understanding of what a watershed plan will ultimately look like for us. You know, in in their case, there's um
upwards of 5,000 parcels uh that are that are impacted. Um uh you know and like I say they I just dropped an email off to the board of health secretary yesterday asking what
happened at July 30th and if there was any outcome or any whatever but again sending this everybody you can get one of these just to see you know we've had we put together what I would call >> you know concept plans but they're not far
>> not to be used for navigation. monitor and geo boundaries. >> Look, look at >> the hybrid wershed management strategy overview. >> It says on it draft for discussion only. >> Mhm. >> Yeah, it's draft. >> This has been submitted to the state, correct?
>> Yep. Yeah. This plan is is is in with the state. >> That was in the >> and in there I Oh, sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I like I say, I I I had some time and I actually got to that. >> What's this solid dark blue line?
>> That's the watershed. >> It goes over three towns. >> Okay. >> So, did they make everybody get IAS or >> they they can only do it for their town? >> No. Did they make everybody in their town get an IIA that doesn't have a sewer? >> Yes.
>> Well, there's some there's there's something I mean, are those Are those yellow areas golf courses? >> I I don't >> or are they just >> are all the ones in the south private >> sources green? >> They they have a series of triggers that are more rigorous than what we're
currently looking at. >> Their their regulation is more rigorous and and and they were in the process. They've also uh if you'll recall they got some SRF money. they provided some grants back to certain homeowners for the IIA and they're revisiting that that
whole uh grant program and how it goes about with the idea of making it more applicable uh to need rather than just first come first served. So >> is there >> the tough questions that we keep raising they they're in the midst of
>> right is there IA requirement BN B >> can't couldn't tell couldn't tell you off the top of my head it has more to do with distance from water bodies salt marshes other things like that times of travel okay
>> because I I mean I think Steve's memo really does crystallize the UD issue perfectly And the issue is B case B. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> They they've had to wrestle with they they've actually had a variance provision in the regulation they
adopted. They actually created some variances and they summarized the variances they've granted in the regulation. So that's that's what I have. Um Okay. >> Other other board members have you want
to talk about shellfish? Um, no. We've got a meeting coming up next week, but I'm going to miss it because it's on the third also. And that's what I wanted to bring up. Are we making a formal decision not to meet on the 3? Is that decided today?
>> All those in favor of not meeting on the third signify by saying I. >> I think does everybody understand why? >> Yeah, because we're all going to the board of health, >> right? Okay. I don't know if the rest of the public knows that. >> Post that as if we're all going.
>> Do we have to post that? >> Yes. Yes. So, the the board of health will meet at the water quality management. Hold on. The water quality management committee
will be meeting on August 3rd, but they will be meeting at the board of health here >> without an agenda of our own. >> I want to check in with Scott McGan about the arrangements they've got and if something is
hot for whatever reason may you know we could do like the selectment do before a town meeting you know we can meet >> right but let's I I think it's important that we say we are not showing up with an agenda. The agenda is completely in the hands of the board of health. >> The agenda, the the agenda for the
hearing is with the board of health. >> Yes. >> But because we are scheduled for meeting, if we had one item that we had to vote on for any reason, >> but it's physically at the senior center. >> Yes. >> Physically at the senior center. >> What time drive room and which I don't know which room that is in the senior center.
>> Probably one of the big ones on the left. >> 5:30. >> It's 5:30 on Wednesday, September 3rd. It's already been posted in the enterprise on on Friday's last I'm sure it'll come up again this week. >> Will there be some sort of prepackage
that will be available to re you or >> I I don't know. >> What's that? The the board of health rig. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it was published in the enterprise. >> Well, yeah, it's published. All of the thing that they're going to talk about is already published in in the notice in the enterprise. >> Kristen, will you just check in with Scott again? get a copy of the
regulation which you're holding the hearing on and distribute it to to the members of the board, please. >> Yeah, good. >> I think they got Last time I saw it was version 11. Yeah, that's pretty small. >> Yeah, >> I need a magnifying glass to read that. I'm sorry. >> I don't
You don't have good glasses. >> I I don't have a magnifying glass. I think one of the kids borrowed it to prove they could stick grass on fire. Uh any other reports, meetings or anything have to step to the microphone, Malcolm? I got 13. And I always ask people to
stay on topic. >> Uh Malcolm Donald, um town meeting member. Uh yeah, I'd just like to uh challenge one of Ken Foreman's uh statements saying that the uh the water consumption of the of the urine
diversion would be the same as um an IIA or a sewer. And uh I beg to differ with you that um IA um UD urine diversion will save 4400 gallons of
water per person. And I think that's uh particularly significant right now in this water uh in this drought situation that we're having. If everybody were doing um urine diversion, you'd be
saving a heck of a lot of water. And then number um the second point I'd like to make is that um the the wastewater treatment plant sewers and IAS do not uh remove phosphorus.
>> You're off topic. >> Uh >> you're off topic. >> Okay. >> I respond. So just I just I just you can So you you're saying that there's a 12gallon per household per day reduction in water
consumption. >> Correct. >> So if the average is 135, there's still 125. So Ken was technically wrong, there will be less water. >> No, I I I wasn't wrong because I didn't say that. I thought water consumption
would be the same. I asked if water consumption would be the same. And if you assume water consumption since the DP standard for best available nitrogen technology is based on the concentration not the mass flow. If the water
consumption is lower then there is no hope that UD will ever qualify as best available nitrogen technology because the amount of water into which the nitrogen is diluted will be less. So in order I mean I think it would be great
if there was less water consumption but it will make it very difficult for UD installations to qualify under D standards if their criteria is based on the concentration. If it was based on the mass of nitrogen
that would be great but John's water's pointed out there's no hope of getting them to change their standard on that. So, you understand what I'm saying? >> Yeah, I understand. It doesn't make any sense and it's um you know, it's a political issue,
>> right? But the point is in in my opinion, in order to get people to adopt UD on any large scale, it has to be it has to qualify as an alternative to putting in
a more expensive approved system like a nitro or a nitrex within these wersheds. And if you if you can't get that credit so that you don't have to do it, you don't have to put in this expensive system, very few people
are going to uh put, you know, put in UD fixtures because they're already going to have to spend 50 or 60,000 bucks to put in a a nitro. That's exactly what Steve said in his
memo. Um, so that's where that's where I was coming from. I was like, how it was really a question is do these UD fixtures because we don't even know what they're going to look like, right? They haven't there is no approved. >> We h we've had a long discussion about
UD. We we we got to the end of that. I failed I failed to ask the audience if they wanted to speak. Thank you, Malcolm, for stepping up and and raising the question or getting the clarification. No, it's 12 gallons less a day >> in response to your question.
>> Your per your diversion will be 12 gallons less a day >> per person. >> No, you gave a number. I divided it by 365. >> Right. >> Average water average water use in homes in the service area in Felmouth is 135.
>> Yeah. >> I took 12 off of the 135. That's where I got my numbers. Okay. Average water use not per person >> per house. >> It would be it would be per person though. >> How >> he's saying his number person
>> the number I'm sorry I think he was saying his numbers >> I'm assuming the number you're quoting presumes that you do not need water to flush the urine away. >> Correct. >> So I have a toilet that uses 1.2 gallons of water a day per flush.
Okay. So, I'm I'll try to work my way back to your number, but there's still a it's going to be less water. It's going to be less water. And that probably is the driving reason why we should go for urine diversion to save water and and and and not have to put any more wells
into the town and save millions of dollars. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. I got it. Thank you. >> And and the drought. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. I entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> Second. >> All right. Yep. All in favor say I.
Second by saying I. I. [Music]