Ashumet Plume Citizens Committee
End
of Term Report to Selectmen
Last fall, we briefed you on the contents of our report
before distributing it to Town Meeting Members in support of Article #70. With your endorsement, that Article asked approval
to pursue more comprehensive remedies to nitrogen pollution than US Air Force
funding would finance. We were
encouraged when Fall Town Meeting adopted that resolution. This report focuses on what we have done
since then and our thoughts about moving forward.
As you recall, we recommended evaluating a comprehensive set
of remedies containing three elements: (1) a program to curb use of fertilizers
that cause more than 20% of the N-load; (2) constructed wetlands above the
coastal ponds to remove nitrogen coming from the upper watersheds that cause
20% to 40% of the N-load; and (3) a management district to construct, manage
and finance a cost-effective wastewater system for the entire watershed in
order to sharply curtail the 50% share of N-load caused by on-site septic
systems.
Resource Needs
Our first task was to find the resources to evaluate the
three elements. Given the Town’s
decision not to conduct the project with Town employees, the question became
whether to seek a contract with one supplier or three --- one each for a
fertilizer management program, a constructed wetlands demonstration, and a
better definition of content and authorization process for a nitrogen
management district.
In December, we met with Peter Boyer and Andrew Gottlieb
[DEP Assistant Commissioner] for advice.
Both expressed concern about finding a single contractor with skills in
all three areas, and the scale of fees such a contractor would charge. Three separate contractors seemed the better
choice, even though that process would take longer. In the hope that they could be launched fairly quickly, we
focused first on the fertilizer management and constructed wetlands initiatives
that could be managed as self-contained projects, which then would allow most
of the committee effort to concentrate on the management district.
Fertilizer Program
Considerable progress has been made on the fertilizer
initiative, thanks in large part to help from FACES. One of FACES’ directors, Hila Lyman, is leading a task group
whose goal is to curb use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers through talks with
civic groups, publicity, and work with local retailers and public education. We
are funding $2,000 for posters and literature.
In addition, the committee has prepared an RFP for a multi-year
program to curb the use of fertilizer, sought recommendations for names of
potential contractors from knowledgeable sources, and identified an initial
list of such contractors. The draft RFP
and listings of knowledgeable sources and potential contractors are available
separately.
Constructed Wetlands
If constructed wetlands would work, the benefits could be
considerable --- cleaning up nitrogen already in groundwater upstream of the
coastal ponds, and substituting for costly de-nitrification investment in the
upper watershed that otherwise will be needed.
Extensive research indicates that constructed wetlands work very well at
removing nitrogen from wastewater effluent, but such effluent contains much heavier
concentrations of nitrogen than is found in rivers [Bournes, Backus and
Coonamessett]. A brief study last fall
shows that Mill Pond does remove considerable amounts of nitrogen, but the
question remains whether: (a) constructed wetlands above our coastal ponds
would remove enough nitrogen to make the effort worthwhile; and (b) too much
surface area would be needed for them.
One way to address those questions would be a workshop. MBL and WHOI have offered informally to
recruit speakers and help organize a workshop, which would require a $35,000
budget and several months time. A
second approach, which the committee recommends, is to circulate a request for
comments to several experienced engineering and wetlands consultants about whether
the concept will work for Falmouth, and if they would like to be a candidate to
design, construct and monitor a demonstration project. If the responses are favorable, the next
step would be to issue an RFP for 1 or 2 demonstration projects(s).
Management District
In addressing wastewater treatment, two basic models could
be used. One is a traditional sewer
district with a central plant serving some homes, plus upgraded on-site
treatment for the rest. Homes connected
to the central plant pay betterments, and homeowners pay to upgrade their own
on-site systems when regulations require it.
That model is reasonably well defined, so there’s no need to reinvent
the wheel for East Falmouth.
The other is a nitrogen management district, wherein an autonomous
local body designs an optimum system to treat all of the watershed’s
wastewater, and then builds, operates and finances it. The core is a central plant for densely
populated areas in the lower watershed where collection costs are relatively
low. Elsewhere, the design is tailored
to reflect: (a) economies of scale and nitrogen-removal effectiveness; and (b)
natural nitrogen removal processes, both in order to obtain the best bang for
the buck in cost and nitrogen removal.
To illustrate, in the upper watershed some homes use
subdivision-size treatment plants that are more efficient to build and
de-nitrify better than individual units [at least with present technology],
while other homes stay with Title V systems if their leachate is denitrified by
flowing through freshwater ponds and streams.
In the lower watershed, Title V systems are adequate for the southern
end of each peninsula where home leachate passes directly or is rapidly flushed
into Vineyard Sound. By tailoring to
fit such factors, the second model should obtain the same nitrogen loading as
the first for less cost per average home.
The second model also seems to offer more financing
flexibility. Whatever the form of
wastewater treatment used by any home in the district, the district is
responsible for maintaining it and constructing new plant as required; sewered
or not, every user has its wastewater handled as a common utility. Thus, there need not be any direct
connection between the utility fee each user pays and where or how the user’s
wastewater is treated. Utility fees
could reflect such factors as number of bedrooms, volume of wastewater actually
generated, assessed valuation of property [as a surrogate for relative benefit
from better surface water quality] and the type of on-site system
replaced. We believe such fees could be
structured to benefit everyone in the watershed from low-interest construction
loads and tax credits, and also could be exempted from Proposition 21/2.
Although there are many autonomous districts [e.g. water,
sewer, fire], the nitrogen district outlined here represents a considerably
upgraded model that needs better definition.
Some of those specifics [e.g. the structure of user fees, easements to
manage on-site systems, delineation of boundaries for types of treatment]
undoubtedly will generate controversy, but the committee believes it would be
shortsighted not to develop the concept sufficiently to make a sound
judgment. We have been encouraged in
this thinking by Margo Fenn of the Cape Cod Commission, Andrew Gottlieb of DEP,
and Peter Boyer to persevere to the point where Selectmen could decide whether
or not to go forward with home rule legislation, system design, structure of
the district and land acquisition. To
reach the first decision step requires an RFP, a search for contractors and a
services contract to define the concept.
Public Education
An ongoing goal has been to share our growing understanding
with fellow citizens. We have conducted
three public forums and, in cooperation with FACES, two sessions on fertilizer
practices, the more recent one having benefited from the additional support of
the League of Women Voters and the Falmouth Garden Club. Various members have and continue to conduct
informal talks before neighborhood and civic associations. Copies of the committee report have been
available at Town Hall, and the complete consultant reports also are on file at
the Main Library and the East Falmouth branch.
Although our events have attracted sympathetic audiences,
attendance has been modest. To increase
our reach, we commissioned a series of articles by Greg Peterson of MBL that The
Enterprise has been kind enough to publish. Those articles, the committee report, summaries of the consultant
reports, and activity updates can be read on line from links on the Town and
AFCEE websites and directly at www.geocities.com/ashumet2001.
Organization
It has fallen to the committee to manage the project,
consulting with Town managers [e.g. periodically with Peter Boyer, and an
all-affected-manager briefing before the committee report was released]. That process places heavy demands on
volunteers, as evidenced by the 46 regular meetings and a full-day workshop the
committee has held since July 1998.
If Selectmen wish the committee to continue in the lead
role, some organizational steps are needed to obtain additional resources. It is proposed to form a subcommittee for
fertilizer management and one for constructed wetlands if that project goes
forward. The chairs would be committee
members, but we would like the flexibility to strengthen outreach and obtain
informed advice without enlarging the committee to an unwieldy size.
For example, the fertilizer subcommittee should have
representatives from landscaping firms, retailers, civic organizations and
garden clubs to help develop educational messages, point of sale posters,
programs like soil testing, etc.. The
smaller wetlands subcommittee will need civil engineering and hydrology help
plus ongoing Bog Subcommittee advice.
The committee then would be free to focus on the management
district, forming a temporary task group of members to draft an RFP, identify
contractors and negotiate a contract to develop the concept to the point of an
initial presentation to Selectmen.
Along the same lines, a few suggestions are offered on
committee make-up: (1) a member from the Finance Committee to help formulate
the management district; (2) if the wetlands project moves ahead, a member from
the Bog Subcommittee; (3) re-commitment of participation from the Planning
Board, Board of Health and Conservation Commission; (4) if appropriate, the
addition of a representative of the Water & Sewer Division of DRW; and (5)
some replacements for citizen members who are retiring. On the last point, Ms. Hila Lyman would make
a strong chair of the fertilizer subcommittee, and a civil engineer would be
the ideal chair for the constructed wetlands subcommittee.
Budget
Since July 1998, expenses have amounted to about $217,000, principally
for the Horsley & Witten contract, a total that is about $10,000 below
budget (Exhibit A). Looking to next
year, and assuming work commences on all three projects, spending will amount
to about $620,000 --- all subject to timing and content of the contracts, of
course. That projection assumes work on
wastewater treatment does not progress to the stage where the US Air Force is
willing to release funds for design and land acquisition for an eastside wastewater
treatment plant. At that point, $7.653
million of US Air Force funding would remain.
July 9, 2001
Exhibit
A
Ashumet
Plume Citizens Committee: Expenses vs. Budget
Est. Act. Budget
July 1998 - June 2001:
Service
Contract [Horsley & Witten] $207.0 $207.0
Administrative & Other Costs:
Report
Printing & Distribution 4.6
FACES
Fertilizer Program Printing, etc. 2.0
Greg
Peterson Articles in The Enterprise 0.8
Clerical,
Postage & Other Expenses 2.6
Total
Administrative Costs
$ 10.0 20.0
Total
Cost
$217.0 $227.0
July 2001 - June 2002
Service Contracts
Fertilizer
Management 200.0
Constructed
Wetlands 150.0
Management
District 250.0
Administrative
& Other Costs 20.0
Total
Cost
$620.0
NOTE: In the translation from Microsoft Word to html, the
numbers do not line up properly. The
Est. Act. numbers are $207.0, 4.6, 2.0, 0.8, 2.6, and 10.0 for a total of
$217.0. All other numbers are in the
Budget column.
June 9, 2001