Falmouth Conservation Commission Meeting
Falmouth Town Hall, Falmouth
September 16, 1998
7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Meeting Minutes

Agenda Item #1. Overview and Summary of Past Events

The special public meeting to discuss remediation options for Town-owned cranberry bogs was convened at 7:07 PM by Mr. Potter, chairman of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Potter introduced Mr. Gordon, Chairman of the Town Bog Committee, and turned the meeting over to him.

Mr. Gordon began his presentation by stating that the Town of Falmouth had 65 acres of cranberry bogs lying in the Coonamessett River Valley from Hatchville Road to Route 28. He noted that approximately 26%, or 14 of those 65 acres, were not affected by the Fuel Spill 28 (FS-28) ethylene dibromide (EDB) plume. He said that those bogs were still in production and therefore were not included in the discussion. However, there were three or four private growers with bogs in the Coonamessett River Valley, whose crops were affected by the EDB, and who would be impacted directly by this evening’s decisions. He asked that the attendees reserve judgment until they had listened to all of the options as fully explained by the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE).

Mr. Gordon then reported that, a year ago, Ocean Spray had stated that it would not purchase any products from the affected cranberry bogs until one year of non-detect for EDB in the water associated with cranberry crop production. He explained that Ocean Spray had indicated that it may change that position. He then read to the group a letter sent by Mr. John Henry, Senior Vice President of Employee Relations and Chief Financial Officer for Ocean Spray to Mr. Jim Snyder, the AFCEE Remedial Project Manager (RPM):

"Dear Mr. Snyder:

I am following up on your presentation to members of our Board of Directors, in which you described AFCEE’s proposal to construct berms along the Coonamessett and Quashnet Rivers in hopes of isolating nearby cranberry bogs from any EDB contamination. Let me start by saying that we appreciate the Air Force’s continued efforts to resolve this situation. We want to work with you to achieve a fair and effective solution. From our perspective, there are two separate issues to consider in evaluating this proposal. First, will the plan work from a scientific and engineering standpoint and second, if the plan does work, would the creation of these channels alongside the cranberry bogs truly alleviate the public’s perception issue at hand here.

As to the viability of your proposal from a purely engineering perspective, I understand you will be sharing the technical details with a variety of experts and other interested parties during a series of meeting this week and next. While we certainly have experience in the area of cranberry bog development and water management, we are sure you understand that the scope and nature of your proposal Is far different from anything we’ve ever encountered. We do not feel qualified at this point to make an absolute pronouncement as to the workability of this proposal. We look forward to hearing the experts’ perspectives; and , to the persistent questions of crop marketability, we surely wish we could say with complete confidence that, if this remediation plan works and meets the standard of no EDB in the water for one year, we will be able to market the fruit. But the the truth is, we do not have that complete confidence at this point. The notion of those cranberry bogs, surrounded by special constructed channels, even if the water doesn’t touch the cranberries, could very conceivably become a public perception problem in its own. Please understand we have not concluded that the public will reject this fruit, only that we need to take into careful consideration the possibility of similar perceptions in implications of your proposal. Beyond that, we will also need to reserve the right to measure public perception after the project is completed, as attitudes could shift the weight of public attention around the remediation work. As I believe Jeff LeFleur of the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association has emphasized, the obviously preferred solution here, one which I realize has been very difficult to achieve, would be to clean up EDB contamination and its removal from the waters before it reaches the cranberry areas so that you would not need to construct those bypass channels.

We share with you the desire to have this issue resolved, but, in view of our continuing concerns, we could not in good conscience fully endorse the plan absent additional insight into its workability, both from engineering and public perception vantage points. We look forward to the group discussions this week and next and are ready to follow up with you on those issues."

Mr. Gordon said that he looked forward to further discussion of the issues.

Mr. Gordon introduced Ms. Balkus, the Cranberry Project Manager for AFCEE, and Mr. Szymoniak of Jacobs Engineering. Ms. Balkus expressed her appreciation to the Falmouth selectmen and the Conservation Commission for the opportunity to present the cranberry bog EDB contamination alternatives. She introduced Mr. Aker, the FS-28 project manager, and Mr. Karson, both of AFCEE, who she noted would also be able to answer any questions from the meeting attendees.

Ms. Balkus explained that the purpose of the meeting was to give AFCEE an opportunity to present alternatives being considered to address the EDB contamination in the cranberry bogs and also to give the public an opportunity to ask questions and address concerns. She noted that the goals of the presentation were to evaluate which alternative best resolved the EDB problem and met the community’s needs and to eventually move toward a consensus decision at the meeting to be held on Monday, September 21, 1998.

Ms. Balkus noted that all of alternatives had been summarized on the meeting handout (see attachment #1). She stated that, when she was hired as the Bog Project Coordinator, her first assignment was to identify all the stakeholders. Her second assignment was to identify all the issues in order to ensure that any proposals put forth by AFCEE would address all those issues. She noted that the stakeholders and issues were identified on page 4 of the meeting handout. Ms. Balkus stated that some actions had already been taken, and were ongoing, for the EDB response plan. One, an interim action under the CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) process, was Extraction Well-1 (EW-1). EW-1 was removing a great deal of the plume that had emanated from FS-28. Also ongoing was the Southwest Operable Unit (SWOU) remedial investigation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). She stated that the Bog/River Separation Plan, which specifically addressed the surface waters and cranberry bogs, would be the topic of discussion this evening.

Ms. Balkus stated that the goals of the Bog/River Separation Plan were two-fold: (1) to protect human health and the environment, and (2) to implement an action to return the bogs to production by the year 2000. She noted that Congress had given AFCEE two years of authority to get this action implemented. During this two-year period, cranberry growers and towns would be compensated for not producing a cranberry crop. She also stated that one of the hardest parts of the project was to balance all competing interests, including the community's concerns, the cranberry industry’s perspectives, the fisheries’ concerns, the impact on wetlands habitat, the project time, cost, and risk, and, where possible, the minimization of that risk. She stressed that the project sought to balance every one of those components.

Ms. Balkus then presented an overview of the Coonamessett River bog system, as depicted on page 8 of the meeting handout. She pointed out the area of the FS-28 groundwater plume, which she said was very deep; she then traced the town and private bogs located downgradient of the plume, and continued southward from Pond 14 to the Reservoir and Lower bogs. She then turned the meeting over to Mr. Szymoniak who would explain the reasoning behind the alternatives.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that he had been involved in the project since EDB was first discovered in October 1996. Since then, 70 monitoring wells and the EW-1 extraction well, which was pumping 600 gallons per minute (gpm), had been installed. Surface water sampling was being conducted on a monthly basis, and AFCEE was conducting groundwater monitoring from 16 monitoring wells located at the leading edge of the plume, in addition to monitoring the performance of the extraction well. He said that these investigative activities provided the framework of a conceptual model. He also noted that a cross-section of the area under study was shown on page 9 of the meeting handout. The model, which conceptualized groundwater movement in the area, indicated that higher concentrations of EDB were located at Hatchville Road toward the conservation area. The lower concentrations were beginning to upwell and come into the lower bogs between the confluence of the Broad and Coonamessett Rivers. This upwelling caused the surface water to become contaminated at that point, from which it then flowed down river all the way to Great Pond. He noted that another part of the plume was deeper, and that more wells had been installed to define that. Mr. Szymoniak reported that, so far, only one well had shown EDB contamination; the other wells were non-detect. He said that the situation would be monitored to see if contamination concentrations were increasing in the area around monitoring well 1300 (MW1300).

Mr. Szymoniak stated that the modeling done for EW-1 predicted that the uncaptured area of the plume beyond the extraction well would be upwelling into the bogs in 5 to 7 years. He noted that the well itself was capturing 100% of the plume above Hatchville Road; the piece beyond the extraction well that had migrated before the well was turned on represented about 26% of the plume. He said that EW-1 would be in operation for about 10 years to clean up the plume itself and that there was still some uncertainty because cranberry bogs have varying amounts of water flow. Mr. Szymoniak also mentioned that AFCEE was planning to conduct additional sampling and install two more monitoring wells to track EDB concentrations in the plume.

Mr. Szymoniak described EW-1 as an 8-inch-diameter well, about 210 below ground surface, with a 60-foot screen. He said that EW-1 had begun pumping on October 17, 1997, at about 780 gpm; the flow was since decreased to 600 gpm. He also noted that concentrations started in the well started out at 4.1 parts per billion (ppb) and that the federal drinking water standard or maximum contaminant level (MCL) was .02 micrograms per liter (m g/L). The level at the treatment plant had subsequently dropped to 0.5 m g/L, while the effluent was non-detect.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that the surface water sampling has been conducted at several bog locations and at some sampling stations since October 1996. New stations were added in April of 1998 to monitor the actual individual influent and effluent of the bogs. He said that the highest concentrations were in the Broad River, at Station 14. The lower bogs showed concentrations that ranged from just below MCL to barely detectable concentrations, depending on the time of year. He noted that at this time of year the concentrations were barely detectable, so the trend was toward lower levels of EDB in the lower bogs. Since EW-1 went on-line, higher concentrations were seen at Station 14 at the Broad River, where the majority of the plume upwells. The lower concentrations were at Station 24, at the exit of the Baptiste farm, approximately 1000 feet downgradient from the confluence of the Broad River. Station 49, located before the entrance to Pond 14, was also a key station. Mr. Szymoniak also said that when the bogs were flooded, the concentrations going into Pond 14 were basically non-detect, which figured heavily into some of the remedial alternatives and how the flow of water may be controlled. He said that at Station 24, those low levels leaving the Baptiste bog were non-detect into Pond 14, which was probably due to a combination of two things: a lot of clean water ponding in the bog itself when the bog was flooded, and the stopping of the effluent, which changed the hydraulic gradient so that less could upwell into the bog itself. Mr. Szymoniak reported that therefore, one of the remedial alternatives being considered was to try to control this situation without affecting the fish migration.

Mr. Szymoniak then discussed quarterly groundwater monitoring at the Coonamessett River. He noted that the two monitoring stations were located immediately upgradient and downgradient of EW-1. He said that the high levels that the well was extracting were on the order of 10 ppb; downgradient of the well, at a different elevation and at different depths, the concentrations were in the vicinity of 0.1 ppb; the concentrations actually going into the pond were 0.7 ppb. Further downgradient was part of the uncaptured 26% that migrated beyond the extraction well before it was turned on, therefore the concentrations had remained about the same when the water was sampled and the wells were installed in November 1996. Mr. Szymoniak noted that decreases in the concentrations were expected and that more would be known with additional sampling and monitoring.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that there was a very sharp increase in the concentrations at the leading edge of MW130. When all of the information was assembled and the groundwater modeling completed, it had been predicted that this portion of the plume would disperse. The data, however, tended to indicate that it was not dispersing, therefore another monitoring well would be installed upgradient to determine why these concentrations were increasing. The two wells immediately downgradient of this, 100 to 200 feet away, were non-detect, which indicated that the plume at this particular area was very narrow and very small. Mr. Szymoniak noted his belief that it would not upwell into the bogs themselves, but would tend to disperse out because of the tremendous amount of water in the system at that point. He then turned the meeting over to Ms. Balkus to discuss bog alternatives.

Ms. Balkus provided an overview of the data Mr. Szymoniak had discussed. At the upper bogs, approximately 26 acres were impacted. The three alternatives presented were: (1) buy out the bogs; (2) separate the bogs from the river and provide an alternate, clean water source; and (3) provide active or passive treatment. The alternatives to address the lower bogs, which had very low concentrations already and were not significantly impacted, were (1) depend on actions taken in the upper bogs, where contamination was upwelling; and (2) separate the bogs from the river to insure that EDB was not getting into the bogs and flowing down from them.

Ms. Balkus noted that EW-1 would continue to operate throughout all alternatives. She then described Alternative A as a buyout, which meant that the crop or the land, or both, would be bought, for an undetermined time period that depended on how long it took for the contamination to upwell. She noted that the model indicated that, in the upper bogs, it could take as long as 5 to 7 years for the leading portion of the contamination to upwell and go down to non-detect. For that period of time, the Air Force would continue to buy the crop as it had this year and would next year. The Air Force would also maintain the bogs, install controls to limit access, if necessary, and would continue sampling and monitoring. Ms. Balkus cautioned the group that on this particular alternative there was currently no legislative authority beyond calendar year 1999 for the buyout. However, she noted that this was still an option that needed to be evaluated.

Ms. Balkus again turned the program over to Mr. Szymoniak to detail the remaining alternatives. She also noted that Alternatives A, B, C, and D were the exact same alternatives that were presented at the FS-28 open house.

Mr. Szymoniak explained that Alternative B realigned the river to the Baptiste bog, which was divided into the upper and lower Baptiste bogs. He said that the contamination was upwelling in the upper Baptiste bog and that this alternative attempted to take control of these bogs and separate the fish migration pathway, starting at the beginning of the Baptiste bog and going all the way through the outlet. The channel in the upper bog would be lined to prevent EDB from upwelling into the new river channel; with no upwelling in the channel, it would be a clean alternative water source for the three private bogs. Mr. Szymoniak stated that Alternative B would also provide separation for the Adams and LaSalle bogs, with some storage capacity included. He noted that the storage basins would be kept at low levels, which would control flood conditions and the contamination itself. The alignment of the channel would be set up so that it would revert back to wetlands after the treatment. He also mentioned the advantages that the alternative separated the surface waters to control the upwelling, and the spring and fall herring migration pathway would be maintained.

Mr. Szymoniak then explained that there were two sides to a bermed channel: the interior and exterior. He said that the interior berm would be used by the bog operator or for the actual remediation; the exterior, on the river side, would be the riparian zone. The disadvantage to the berms was the disruption of the current river channel. He also noted that because EDB would still be present in the river, and there was a possibility that the upper bog could have EDB, there was therefore a need for separation. The goal of this alternative was to reduce the concentrations ten-fold so that the concentrations going into Pond 14 would be non-detect. This would bring all the bogs back into production. The upgradient bogs would all be separated and alternative water would be provided.

Mr. Szymoniak went on to explain that Alternative C built on Alternative B by adding active treatment. Shallow groundwater wells would be installed to keep up with the contamination upwelling into the river and the treatment plant would be expanded from the current rate of 600 gpm to about 2,400 gpm. That water would be discharged at about four locations, so that the flow would be the same as what was entering the bogs. The shallow well points would be connected to a header system and the water would be pumped back to the top. Mr. Szymoniak noted that this alternative would require that power be brought in for the pumps. If power was lost, basins would function as a backup. Basically, this alternative would get the concentrations to non-detect and, with the exception of the lower Baptiste, which represented about 6.6. acres, get all the bogs back into production.

Mr. Szymoniak noted that Alternative D was the same as Alternative B in that it relied upon realigning the channel. However, it also separated all the other bogs on the river system. He then referred to the letter from Ocean Spray and remarked that he felt that the key was to reduce the concentrations at Pond 14 to non-detect.

Mr. Szymoniak described Alternative E as a phased approach, which included the use of treated water from EW-1 as the water source. He said that the water requirements were about 600 gpm, which was currently produced from the treatment plant. He also noted that a pipeline down to the Chaston bog was proposed to provide an alternative water source for the growers in that region; the purpose was to separate the upper bog and provide alternative water. He noted that the striped lines on the Alternative E figure indicated that the bogs that were not separated. He suggested providing alternative water to those bogs that were already separated, which would entail putting a berm on the Adams and LaSalle bogs. Two options were available for the East Thompson bog; one would include realigning the channel, possibly removing a weir, improving the fish channel and converting that part back into wetlands or a cranberry bog; the second would be to berm the east side of the bog so that the west side became wetlands and the east side remained cranberry bog. There was still the possibility that EDB would remain in the river system with this alternative, but the goal was for Pond 14 to be non-detect. The water leaving Pond 14 would be clean and the bogs would come back into production. In order to accomplish that, a tracer test at Pond 14 would be necessary to determine how the water flowed. Mr. Szymoniak proposed using an abandoned cranberry bog near Pond 14 to improve the flow from Pond 14 and for getting more clean water to achieve non-detect at the outlet.

Mr. Szymoniak then noted that, as discussed in Alternative B, the Baptiste bog would have few, if any, alterations. He explained that in trying to keep the river where it currently was, there were two options to consider. One was to build a small pond at the beginning of the river, which would function as a mixing basin and help to add more clean water and lower contaminant concentrations. The second option was to add shallow well points, decrease the flow of EW-1 to 400 gpm and use the excess capacity to try to remove more of the mass of EDB that was upwelling. The goal would be to treat more of the shallow groundwater to achieve the ten-fold decrease discussed earlier. A pipeline would service all the other bogs. Mr. Szymoniak stated that this alternative had merit because, as a phased approach, it utilized what was in place and did not alter many of the current channels.

Ms. Balkus summarized the alternatives discussion for the group: (1) buy out the bogs or compensate for the crops; (2) separate the bogs and/or provide an alternate water source to provide winter protection and flooding for harvest; (3) provide treatment, either passively by providing a pond where the hydraulic gradient would be changed so that contamination would not be allowed to upwell, or actively, by installing shallow well points which would pull out shallow groundwater treat it at EW-1. Ms. Balkus reiterated that the focus was on treating the upper bogs and getting Pond 14 to non-detect so that no action would be necessary at the lower bogs.

Ms. Balkus then discussed which response actions were easier to implement and those which were more difficult to implement due to the uncertainties associated with them. She said that the Upper Baptiste bogs, E1 and E2, were already clean, however the Upper Baptiste bog, E3, would need to be separated from the Broad River, which was where some of the upwelling was occurring. The Adams and LaSalle bogs would also need to be separated from the river. The Augusta, West Thompson and Chaston bogs were already separated from the river, but needed a clean source of water in order to return to production. She remarked that the two alternatives for the East Thompson bog were more difficult. The river channel could be relocated, or it could be left where it is and bermed, but the whole cranberry bog would not be separated from the river. The proposed treatment option would take place at the Lower Baptiste Bog, either passively by ponding the water, or actively, by installing extraction well points.

Mr. Potter asked if it was correct that one of the options included the installation of shallow well points in the lower Baptiste bog to collect part of the plume that escaped EW-1 capture. Mr. Szymoniak stated that this was correct. He explained that there were two options with Alternative C, installing the well fence and using the capacity of the treatment plant without realigning the channel, or pumping a much larger volume and moving the river out. Mr. Potter asked, if the shallow well points were to be used, whether the treated water at EW-1 would be decreased in order to accommodate water withdrawn from the well points. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this was correct and added that there would be a remaining capacity of about 400 gpm.

Ms. Muramoto asked if Alternative B was essentially the first part of any of the alternatives. Mr. Szymoniak clarified that this was only the case with Alternatives C and D.

Mr. Corriveau noted that the demands on the water source would be for the lower bogs. He asked whether those bogs would be able to use Pond 14 again in the future. Mr. Szymoniak replied that if Pond 14 returned to non-detect, it could be used as a source again, however he felt that it was premature to say.

Ms. MacRae suggested that it would be better to determine how the contamination was entering the cranberries before putting millions of dollars into plans to remove the bogs from the river system. Ms. Balkus reported that research studies were currently underway at Kansas State University (KSU) to determine how the contamination enters the cranberries. One study, which involved floating cranberries in water with varying amounts of contamination, would evaluate if EDB could enter the skin of the fruit. The second study involved growing a plant in a controlled groundwater source to determined whether or not the roots could uptake the EDB and eventually contaminate the fruit. She also noted that testing was done on berries last year with some varying results; the Air Force samples had shown no contamination in the berries, but the Massachusetts Department of Health (MDPH) results had shown that there was contamination. It was anticipated that the KSU studies would provide more definitive results. Ms. Balkus also mentioned that literature was available on studies where other types of fruits and plants were not contaminated by EDB, however, to date, there was nothing on cranberries.

Ms. MacRae questioned why these studies were not done three years ago. Mr. Szymoniak reminded her that when the bogs were flooded, the values were non-detect.

Mr. Adams remarked that there had not been any detectable EDB in those bogs before treatment. Now that there was treatment, 85% of the tests showed clean water. He felt that anyone with any knowledge of plant pathology would assume that EDB would not enter the plant. Although he felt that the study may be a waste of money, he believed that it was worthwhile for people to get their questions answered.

Mr. Gordon noted that two weeks from now would be the second anniversary of the discovery of EDB in the bogs and added that, although it may not seem so, much had learned about the situation since that discovery.

Mr. McDermott commented that he was mystified as to why it was imperative to grow cranberries. He noted that the towns’ total investment in the bogs was $87,500; this was what the towns were paid. Given all the problems, Mr. McDermott remarked that it did not make sense to grow cranberries when not growing them meant having a healthy river system with fish and other aquatic life unaffected by cranberry bogs. He further stated that it was known that pesticides were going into the river because these were flow-through bogs rather than the more traditional bogs where the water was dammed. He stressed that he honestly did not see the advantage, given the towns’ investment of $87,500. He then remarked that upward of $6 million was being considered to treat the contamination, with no guarantee that the treatment would work. He asked that the town consider his comments.

Ms. Holden noted that there were a couple of issues to consider regarding the KSU studies: (1) the movement of EDB into the cranberries and then out again, and (2) whether there was bioaccumulation. She said that these studies may have some bearing on what was ultimately done, but that they did not happen overnight, particularly the translocation and bioaccumulation issues. She questioned the wisdom of waiting two years until the study results were in and doing nothing in the meantime.

Mr. O’Hara asked how much money was spent last year to reimburse the growers for their losses. Ms. Balkus replied that $800,000 were reimbursed to the towns of Mashpee and Falmouth. Mr. O’Hara asked if it was correct that while the remediation alternative could run up to $6 million, nothing could be done to the bogs and the growers could be reimbursed, with legislative approval, for $5.6 million. Ms. Balkus replied yes, that was one of the alternatives, Alternative A, the buyout.

Mr. O’Hara expressed his concerned about the potential public perception problem described in the letter from Ocean Spray. He then referred to the upheaval associated with the construction of any of the treatment systems and asked why it would not be better to take a "wait and see" approach. Mr. O’Hara remarked that he saw no sense in going through the remediation process when it was quite possible that the growers would have to be compensated anyway, if Ocean Spray would not buy their crops.

Mr. Montague commented that the best thing for the fish would be a buyout process because it would allow the river to go back to as natural a state as possible. However, if the town fathers felt that the town bogs should continue in the production of cranberries, then he thought that Alternative D should be considered. He said that the best thing for the river and the cranberries is to separate the two as much as possible. He noted that he personally leaned toward Alternative A, but did not feel that it was "his call."

Mr. Chaston stated that he was a cranberry grower and wanted to continue to grow cranberries if it could be done fairly and a good clean crop was the result. He then asked if the pipes coming down from the well above would be pumped or would rely on gravity flow. Mr. Szymoniak replied that they would be pumped.

Mr. Hayward questioned why buying out the most impacted properties or remediating the ones left was being considered. He said that it did not seem to him that it should be an either/or proposition. Ms. Balkus said that this was what Alternative E would try to do. Mr. Hayward suggested that one or two bogs could be bought and to "not fool with the rest of them."

Mr. Corriveau asked how Mr. Hayward might feel if someone came into his backyard where he had been growing tomatoes for 15 years and wanted to buy out his farm. He remarked that it was not easy to let go of something like that. Mr. Hayward replied that if the price was right, he would be happy to let go.

Mr. Adams commented that it was a very good point that point below Pond 14 was the biggest source of the income from the bogs. He said that the cranberry growers all had something to lose, but that Mr. Handy and the Town of Falmouth had the most to lose. He felt that with any plan the growers should come out on top, or at least on an equal platform. He also said that he took exception to Mr. McDermott’s comment and he asked "$87,500 times how many years?" He said that he was proud of the appearance of the town and remarked that cranberry bogs were part of Cape Cod. Mr. Adams wondered whether Mr. McDermott was willing to lose one-third of his income and noted that this was what Mr. McDermott was asking Mr. Handy to do. He noted that his own income was supposed to send his kid to college this year. He also said that Mr. McDermott would say that there would be money from the government. He then asked Mr. McDermott if he knew how much money the growers had actually seen from the government. He said that it was very little compared to his lifetime investment, which was to go to his children, and his children’s children. He noted that Mr. Handy’s family has been here for five generations and he has been here a while himself and had many changes in the town.

Mr. Gordon agreed that the cranberry bogs held a very important "sense of place" to many people in the town.

Mr. Tripp remarked that having heard the details of the alternatives, it was time to make a recommendation to the Air Force about where the town would like to be headed in this process. He said that he did not want to "close any doors too tightly" because there were still some questions that had to be answered; we suggested making a "soft" recommendation rather than a "hard" recommendation, so that it could be tweaked along the way. He suggested a recommendation that would incorporate that continued tweaking. He stated that the Board of Selectmen and the Bog Subcommittee had been interested in the pre-EDB bog operation and were also interested in the public perception that there were nutrients and chemicals leaking from the bogs. He said that the town had been looking at some system that would move the river away from what it had become in the past 200 years of cranberry bog operation; making it more of a natural system which separated the bog operations so that the bogs could retain water when chemicals were applied in order to avoid any impact to the river.

Mr. Tripp remarked that a combination of Alternatives B and D would mean dealing with the EDB in the ponds that would be created and separating out the entire length of the system of day-to-day bog operations from the natural system. He said that he hoped that this would prevent impacts to the fish. If a natural system could be reestablished, the herring could pass without having to "fight" with the bog operator about water levels. He said that it seemed that a combination of Alternatives B and D would be headed in that direction, the direction in which the Bog Committee was headed before the EDB was discovered.

Mr. Tripp commented that Jacobs Engineering had done some of that work for the Committee, but had done it while wearing "engineering blinders" and "EDB blinders." He said that input from wildlife and wetlands biology perspectives was needed, in addition to the input that had been received so far, in order to make a recommendation that allowed for that continued interaction. He felt that the focus on the cost should not pertain only to the the capital investment and the maintenance for these alternatives, but on that "sense of place." He reiterated that value should be considered not just in terms of economics, but in terms of emotional value, historic value and cultural value. He wondered how one could determine the value of the open space adjacent to the cranberry bogs or the natural wetland system that was draining to the cranberry bogs. Mr. Tripp said that he imagined that some cranberry bogs would be lost with some of these alternatives, and that would be an adjustment that would have to be made. He then emphasized that there were values that went beyond simply the dollar values of these alternatives; he said that focusing only on dollar value was "missing the point."

Mr. Chaston stated that although he was only a small grower, the military had not treated him fairly in terms of compensation. Therefore, he did not feel very receptive to the idea of selling his bogs to the Air Force, unless he was going to be treated better than in the past.

Mr. Potter asked Mr. Handy what he thought about the Ocean Spray letter. Mr. Handy replied that even if the bogs were non-detect, the public perception may not be good. He said that initially he was upset to hear some of the reactions. He noted that the letter indicated that Ocean Spray did not have a good level of confidence in simple river diversion, because there may still be contamination in the bogs. He said that Ocean Spray was looking for non-detect and this would involve treatment or something going on up above; simple river diversion would not achieve that.

Mr. Crooks stated that the berries from those bogs were very marketable prior to EDB, and he fully expected that, when the EDB was gone, they would be marketable again. However, he said that in this world there were two certainties: death and taxes. Therefore, he could not unequivocally say that the berries would be marketable. He noted that it was not known if the solutions proposed in the alternatives would work. However, if the EDB was gone, that fruit would be marketable fruit. Mr. Crooks further stated that when the letter was written, none of these options were known, and it could not be predicted which way things would go. He said that obviously the situation was more complex than anyone had envisioned at the time. Therefore, Ocean Spray had to qualify that and state that there was not a guarantee. He reiterated, however, that if the EDB was gone, he could not see why that fruit would not be marketable again. He concluded by saying that Ocean Spray needed products in which consumers had confidence.

Mr. Gordon asked Mr. Handy if he had any thoughts on this. Mr. Handy replied that he saw the treatment with shallow well points as part of the process. He said that he realized that part of the Baptiste bogs , or possibly all of the Baptiste bogs, would be sacrificed as part of the solution to clean up Pond 14. He noted that the private growers must be considered and that he hoped that if treatment were done up above, that the private growers would get clean water too.

Mr. LaFleur stated that everyone wanted to see the plume cleaned up and that it seemed that there were some options here tonight that would assist in that. He felt that the shallow well points and continued operation of EW-1, possibly in combination with Alternative B, may be a viable option and may actually generate a win/win proposal for the town, the growers, and the fish.

Mr. Tripp commented that Alternative C seemed to be a huge engineering project with maintenance required for some unknown future time, which was much bigger than anything with which he could feel comfortable. He then asked if the bogs would be replace with ponds in Alternative C. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the ponds would still be there. Mr. Tripp asked if the ponds could be built first and it could then be determined how much treatment would occur passively. Mr. Szymoniak replied that, basically, this was what was involved in a phased operation.

Ms. Valiela encouraged the group to weed out the things that were found to be unacceptable and keep those on which there was clearly some consensus. Regarding the shallow well points, Ms. Valiela remarked that this was an extraction and treatment function which would get some of the rest of the EDB that was not caught by EW-1. She also noted that there would be less EDB downstream and that the wells would aid in achieving the non-detect goal at Pond 14. She said that she was in favor of the shallow well points. She also noted that a 5 to 7-year period was modeled and was the timeframe to "get through" the EDB. She said that the long-term revenues from these bogs for the private owners and the Town of Falmouth would have to be considered.

Mr. Mack said that he was concerned about the intrusive pipes above the ground, the wiring and so forth. He was also concerned that some of the ponds would be taken out of the Baptiste area and he was very much concerned about altering the water table. Ms. Valiela noted her understanding that, once the choices were narrowed, there would be a Notice of Intent to the Conservation Commission on the plan that was developed and the implementation of that plan. She stated that at such time that there was a concrete plan before the Board, it would then be appropriate to bring before the Board issues of how the neighborhood should look.

Ms. Selman questioned why, since there was a 7-year cleanup time, some of the bogs were not relocated. She noted that there were two years that crops could be purchased. She suggested that if an area in the town could be found to relocate the bogs, the growers could be paid off, the bogs, estuaries and river system could be cleaned up, and the EDB could be treated rather than suppressed. She noted that when the EDB levels dropped, the growth there could be reestablished, thereby increasing both the crop and the income. She felt that this was a possibility and noted that the government had moved entire communities affected by contamination; she did not see why the government could not move bogs.

Mr. Gordon asked how long it takes to establish a bog. Mr. Handy replied that to get into production took close to 5 years. He said that moving the bogs was an interesting idea, but he hoped that a plan would come together that would take a lot less than 5 years.

Mr. McDermott noted his belief that the lease for the Handy bogs would expire in the year 2004. He said that someone else would bid on the lease or the town may decide to consider other options.

Ms. MacRae commented that while she understood that her neighbors who grow cranberries had taken a loss, the local residents had been impacted and taken losses as well. She explained that the reality was that the residents had lost property value. She said that the people in the cranberry industry had done damage to her land and her home. She noted that when she had moved to her home, the Baptiste bogs were not even in existence, therefore these bogs had greatly impacted her property. She also pointed out that the people in her neighborhood were now faced with the prospect of dealing with a treatment plant. She asked that the town consider not only the cranberry growers, but the residents in the area as well as their investments. She remarked that she had lost her dream as well.

Ms. Muramoto asked what progress had been made in the storage of treated water. She said that she understood that consideration was being given to storing treated water in the event that bogs needed to be flooded with clean water. Mr. Szymoniak replied that there was a possibility of putting in a 1.5 acre pond that would provide treated water for some bogs, however this was only a conceptual idea at this point.

Mr. Montague asked if the cost sheet (see attachment #2) included any annual maintenance and operation at EW-1. He also asked if these costs were for the entire 5 to 7 years. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the operation and maintenance costs of EW-1 were built in to treatment figures, however he was unsure if the wellhead treatment in option C2 had all the costs of EW-1 figured into it.

Mr. Tripp asked if the channel would be realigned for the $6 million. Mr. Szymoniak replied no, and explained that the channel realignment included expanding the treatment plant to 2400 gpm, which would triple its size from the current operating capacity. Mr. Tripp asked how much that would cost. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the treatment plant, tripled in size, would probably be a $4 million investment. He added that about 9 million gallons per day were currently being treated.

Mr. Tripp reminded the group that when it comes to cost, the real numbers can come in within 10 to 15% of what was voted on, as was the case of the school that was voted on at the last town meeting. He said that this cost sheet had not existed last week, and it was generated to answer these kinds of questions. However the sheet did not provide the kind of cost estimates that one would get once an alternative was chosen. He further noted this hope that when looking at these costs, the group would not look just at the spreadsheet, but at the sense of place and history and the historic and cultural value of the bogs and the adjacent land. He said that these values had to be incorporated into the cost evaluation in this case.

Ms. Holden stated that there was value in natural wildlife habitat also. She said that any increase in wetlands or restoration of wetlands increased that value. She also said that these values were very difficult to factor in because there was not a good accounting system at this point. However, she felt certain that everyone, particularly the Conservation Commission, should take these values into consideration.

Mr. Gordon stated that his personal view was that whether cranberries were grown for 5 or 500 years, the Air Force should restore the property to its full economic potential, which existed prior to the discovery of EDB. He noted that the group must arrive at this value by consensus.

Ms. Bryden commented that if was truly the goal, then the choice could not be one of these alternatives. She noted that some people favored Alternative A, a buyout. However, she felt that certainly part of the uncaptured EDB plume could not be allowed to continue to downstream, therefore a shallow well point extraction treatment and channel realignment were warranted. She also mentioned the concern for the fisheries, which meant that consideration would have to be given to separating the bogs from the river. Ms. Bryden stated that the total, according to the figures provided, would probably be about $8 million or more. She also mentioned the value of the wildlife, which she said was difficult to determine in terms of numbers. She said that in order for the town to reach consensus, a number of alternatives would have to be implemented.

Mr. Gordon inquired about the permitting process. Ms. Balkus replied that tonight’s discussion led her to believe that Alternative E was not very satisfactorily presented. She said that frankly, Alternative E was AFCEE’s attempt to combine the best parts of Alternatives A, B, C and D. She reiterated that there was no EDB in E1 and E2, the two upper bogs. In E3, there was a low detection along the bottom of the bog where the Broad River comes up against it, which was why the Air Force proposed to put a berm there to separate the bog from the river. She also noted that in the Lower Baptiste bog, which was a big area of contamination, there were three possible options: active treatment, or well points in the area; or passive treatment with a small pond of about 3 acres; or the entire area could be utilized with an approximately 6-acre pond. Ms. Balkus noted that some of the wetlands and fisheries areas could be addressed this way as well, because the creation of the ponds may attract wildlife or generate a wetlands area.

Ms. Balkus noted that the Augusta bog was already separated from the river; only clean water had to be provided there. The clean water, from EW-1, would be piped to the area. The Adams and LaSalle bogs needed to be separated from the river; it was proposed that this separation be accomplished by berms. Clean water would be provided to the bogs by the pipeline as well. She noted that the West Thompson bog was already separated from the river, and that a clean water supply would be delivered to the bog from the EW-1 pipeline. Ms. Balkus remarked that there were a couple of different options for the East Thompson bog. Because of the fishery aspect, the river would be rechanneled to the western side, which would give the river free flow through that area. Also, the weir that was currently there would be taken out, which would allow the fish to pass more easily. If it was found to be unpalatable from a wetlands perspective to relocate the river, AFCEE would propose leaving it where it was. She noted that a portion of the cranberry bog operation could still be preserved and the western side could be developed into wetlands or a pond, whatever would suit the community.

Ms. Balkus stated that the Chaston bog was already separated from the river and just needed a clean water supply, which could be provided by the EW-1 pipeline as well. She said that whatever treatment was provided above Pond 14 would be designed so that by the time EDB got down to Pond 14, it would be non-detect. She said that it was hoped that nothing would need to be done to the bogs below Pond 14 because there would be no contamination, and the bogs could continue operating.

Mr. Augusta remarked that he would like to see the separation near the fish channel. He said that he realized that berming protected the bogs from the fish channel, but he felt that it did not take care of the fish transportation problem. He noted that he would like to see the inclusion of the berming that was proposed in Alternative E, however, he was concerned that the fish way was not completely isolated in Alternative E.

Mr. Gordon again inquired about the permitting process. Ms. Balkus explained that AFCEE was currently in the process of trying to reach a determination as to which particular process this project would follow. She said that it would probably fall under the CERCLA Superfund process, but there was no final conclusion. If that were the case, the project would be handled like all other Superfund projects. It would include a Notice of Intent which would be submitted to the local Conservation Commission, the MA DEP, and the US EPA. The regulators would look at the alternative, evaluate it and determine, from a wetlands perspective, whether or not the alternative was being protective. If the regulators decided that the wetlands were not being protected, they would examine what mitigation was being proposed and whether or not that was acceptable. The fisheries perspective would also be taken into consideration. She said that the regulators would have to look at all the alternatives and determine whether they made sense from a regulatory standpoint. She reported that if the project did not fall under the CERCLA process, even more permitting requirements would have to be followed. Under CERCLA, it was necessary to meet the requirements of the law; under non-CERCLA, it was necessary to fill out a permit. She explained that under either process, there were significant levels of regulatory oversight, review and authorization to ensure that any potential impacts were considered and addressed.

Mr. Montague noted that he relied on the water coming from Pond 14 to drive the Flax Pond run, and was therefore concerned about disconnecting the connection between Pond 14 and Flax Pond. He said that, if isolated, there would be problems in providing enough water to allow the fish to pass, even if improvements were made to the flume at Flax Pond. He said that this should be investigated before that option was considered. Ms. Balkus explained that the reason for the cutoff was to ensure that in the event that non-detect could not be achieved above Pond 14, nothing would be going into Pond 14 which could impact Flax Pond, which was clean.

Mr. Tripp suggested that if the recommendation included the goal of having a stream that was as "naturally flowing" as possible, where there did not have to be competition between herring and cranberry bogs, perhaps exactly how that would be done would not have to be addressed. Regarding permitting, Mr. Tripp noted that there had been a meeting in Lakeville where it was said that the CERCLA decision would be made by August 1. He asked Ms. Balkus if she had any idea as to when that decision would now be made. Ms. Balkus replied that the matter now rested with the attorneys.

Regarding permitting, Ms. Muramoto commented that there were portions of all the options that may be exempt from normal wetlands permitting. She said that the Wetlands Protection Act did address normal maintenance and improvements. She also noted that the project may involve activities and/or structures which may not be subject to the Act, providing those activities followed certain definitions. She said that some areas of the alternatives could be problematic for wetlands; the issues were pretty complex. Ms. Muramoto felt that a meeting should be held to discuss regulations further as they pertained to the proposed alternatives. She then asked if it was true that there was an effort to schedule a meeting with regulators to talk about permitting. Ms. Balkus replied yes, the Air Force was trying to set that up after the Monday meeting. She explained that the benefit was that alternatives could be narrowed down and the exact permitting process could be discussed. Once the decision was made, the design would be done. At that time the Air Force would know the exact path the permitting would have to follow.

Mr. McLaughlin asked if there was a timeline and what was the dollar amount of the legislative appropriation. Ms. Balkus replied that the timeline was two years. Mr. McLaughlin remarked that $800,000 had been paid out, some to Mashpee, some to Falmouth. He asked what dollar amount was authorized. Ms. Balkus replied that in 1997, it was an $800,000 authorization. Mr. McLaughlin asked if this authorized compensation to both private growers and the towns for leasement. Ms. Balkus replied that it did. Mr. McLaughlin asked if this meant that the Air Force could lease these lands and simply take some of the bogs out of production. Ms. Balkus explained that the compensation and authority pertained to the cranberry crop itself, not to the land. She added that it was not the intent of the Air Force to sublet the land or to do anything else with it, aside from the crop aspect. Mr. McLaughlin stated that the Air Force was then buying the crop. Ms. Balkus agreed that this was so.

Mr. McLaughlin commented that Alternative E sounded like a good consensus for the beginning. He noted that the growers had been asked to flood the bogs and destroy the blossoms, in anticipation of being compensated, and this had been done. He noted that a question for the bog owners was whether EW-1 discharge treated water was acceptable to them for irrigation and flooding. Mr. Chaston replied that for him, it was. He also noted that he had more to say when Mr. McLaughlin was finished.

Mr. McLaughlin explained that he was trying to make a separation here between the Lower Baptiste and those bogs above it which were the town bogs; the private growers were farther down. He asked, if clean water or treated water was provided for a year, whether that would be acceptable to Ocean Spray. Mr. Crooks replied that the public perception at that time would have to be considered. He said again that if there was nothing in the water, he did not see why there would be a problem.

Mr. McLaughlin proposed the following question: should a recommendation be made that the town work with the leaseholder on the Lower Baptiste bogs to use them to capture the remaining piece of the plume that can be captured by more active treatment, thus sacrificing that area in order to preserve the private growers’ bogs so that all these effects will ultimately work at Pond 14. He said that he did have an interest in the fish runs and that this process was started a while ago in order to eliminate the pesticides. He also remarked that maybe the group should start to write these things down and come to some sort of an agreement. He felt that there was a hybrid developing that had a lot of support.

Mr. Gordon suggested listing the alternatives and rating them. He asked for a show of hands in favor of Alternative A, EW-1 plus buyout. An attendee asked if this meant buying out the growers or just compensating them while they were at a loss. The attendee noted that this was a big difference. Ms. Balkus agreed that this was a big difference. She said that there would have to be negotiation with individual growers and the towns. Until that was negotiated, she did not feel that it could be defined. Ms. Breivogel commented that if people voted for Alternative A, this type of discussion would be required and people would be asking for negotiations to take place.

Mr. Gordon asked to see a show of hands for Alternative B, EW-1 plus channel realignment. He noted that the alternative included realigning the channel in the upper Baptiste bogs, lining the section in the upwelling area, separating the surface waters, and creating basins in E2. An attendee commented that there had he not heard a vote for Alternative A. Mr. Gordon stated that eight people had raised their hands for Alternative A. The attendee commented that ideas had been heard from everyone present and that was quite a combination. Mr. Gordon explained that the public was making a statement as to what it would like to see the Bog Committee and Conservation Committee recommend to the Air Force.

Mr. Tripp commented that if it were up to him, he would recommend the process that was already started and was changing almost day by day; that was Alternative E. He suggested that the group include its recommendations to the Air Force regarding those things that it felt was important and should be preserved. He stated that the group wanted a separation of the natural stream from the day-to-day bog operation; it wanted a reduction in EDB down to non-detect so that the cranberries could continue to be sold; and it also wanted a return of anadromous fisheries. He noted that however these things were accomplished, those details would not be addressed until the implementation stage, and that level of detail would not be discussed tonight. Mr. Tripp commented that it seemed that the elements that the group would want to include in its recommendation had already been discussed and were actually outlined in the letter written by the selectmen six months ago.

Ms. Breivogel asked what was the cranberry growers’ preferred alternative. Mr. Chaston replied that he thought that Alternative E was probably the best combination of all the alternatives.

Ms. Muramoto noted that Alternative E was a complex plan. She then asked what the significant differences were between Alternatives B and E. Mr. Szymoniak explained that Alternative B moved the river over and realigned the channel; this was not proposed in Alternative E. He said that the goal was to create a natural pond so that portions, or perhaps all, of the bog would provide enough area where clean water could mix. Alternatively, shallow well points could be installed to attempt to achieve the same concentration reduction. Mr. Szymoniak noted that there were three options to consider that did not involve moving the river.

Ms. Valiela commented that there was a lot of value to not moving the river, for the fish, for the existing cultural values, and in terms of permitting considerations. She noted that the clear explanation that Alternative B moved the river indicated to her that it was not in the best interest of the town. She recommended that the cleanup be accomplished and the EDB problems be solved with Alternative E.

Ms. MacRae stated that Alternative E would also move the river. Mr. Szymoniak explained that Alternative B would line a piece of that channel to keep the EDB from upwelling. Basically, a berm would be created, however the channel itself would remain the primary channel for that bog. He said that there were a couple of options there; one side could be bermed without moving the river; and some area could be converted back to wetlands. He reiterated that there were options that could be considered with Alternative E without moving the river.

Ms. MacRae asked if there would be public input on this. Mr. Gordon stated that there would be an opportunity for public input when the Notice of Intent was filed.

Mr. O’Hara remarked that the compensation to the cranberry growers for lost crops should be a precedent for potential future situations when there may be a "cranberry scare." He emphasized that the compensation aspect should stay in place until non-detect was achieved and there was a clean cranberry crop.

Mr. Chaston stated that no matter what happened, the Air Force would not be getting out of the cranberry business in the year 2000. He felt that the town and the growers should lobby their senators to ensure that the Air Force would provide long-term compensation. He noted that the growers needed to have full protection. He also noted that their lives had been put on hold as they sat day to day wondering if they would have a paycheck. Mr. Chaston stressed that this had to be ironed out; long-term compensation was needed. He also noted that it would be 5 to 7 years before the bogs went back into production.

Mr. Tripp stated that he was making a suggestion in the hope that a recommendation would be built from it. He referred to the physical separation of the bog operation from the stream, the entire length, and noted that one of the issues of concern was the public’s perception, perhaps unsubstantiated, that there were pesticides and nutrients leaking from the bogs into the natural system. Therefore, he felt that one of the plan elements should be to the ability to retain water after the application of chemicals for some period of time before the water would be released into the natural system; the entire length would then have to be bermed.

Ms. Selman noted that she was in favor of long-term compensation. She recommended closing down the affected areas, providing appropriate compensation to the growers, letting the bogs become clean naturally, and paying the growers during that 5-year period. She noted that the crop would be maintained in cycles, but the berries would not be sold. Mr. Chaston stated that this was basically what was now happening; the bogs were on hold and they were being maintained at a very minimal level to keep the berries and vines from dying. Ms. Selman stressed that she was suggesting that the growers be paid properly.

Ms. Muramoto noted her sense that the group was heading toward Alternative E. However, she noted that she was still hearing some preference for compensation and for complete separation of the river from the bogs, which was not included in Alternative E at the moment. She concluded that the preference seemed to be for Alternative E plus complete separation of the bogs from the river, in addition to consideration of continued compensation for some time.

Ms. Bryden asked if the plume had been detected in an area downstream of the lower Baptiste bog. Mr. Szymoniak replied yes, a narrow part of the plume had escaped and was deep in the area of MW1300, the leading edge, at a depth of 100 feet. Ms. Bryden asked how Alternative E would address that situation. Mr. Szymoniak explained that Alternative E did not have to deal with this, based on the small contaminant concentrations and considering the large volumes of water in that area. He said that the six monitoring wells in that area were all non-detect. Also, based on sampling, there were decreased levels of EDB going down river. He noted that there was a tremendous amount of water in the river, and only a small fraction of it was contaminated.

Ms. Holden asked how certain Mr. Szymoniak was that EDB would not show up at some other point. Mr. Szymoniak stated that drilling had been done all the way back up to the base and up to FS-13, and the plume could not be detected. He said that very low concentrations were found in the area of the Crane Wildlife Preserve, and that those were being investigated as part of a remedial investigation in that area. Mr. Szymoniak also reported that once above the Lockstead Association, the concentrations of EDB fell off dramatically.

Mr. Corriveau recommended a combination of Alternatives A and E, and separating the river from the bogs. He further recommended trying to delete the controversy about the wetlands and berms in the East Thompson bog, alleviating the concerns of the people who live in that area, and enhancing the river. He said that the Air Force should implement Alternative E, but leave some options open such as segregating the river. He said that the Air Force should do all the right things and get rid of the bad things. He also commented that price did not really weight in because a dollar value could not be put on what there was in this community.

Mr. Gordon remarked that his understanding was to go with Alternative E, realigning the river, and possibly incorporating some of Alternative B. Ms. Muramoto added that it would actually be Alternative E with berming, continued compensation, water supply for growers, and continued monitoring.

Mr. Gordon asked if there was a motion. Ms. Selman mentioned her concern that the public has not always been informed of these meetings; she said that the general public, not just the cranberry growers, should be informed of all meetings.

Mr. Tripp made the following recommendation: that the Conservation Commission, along with the Board of Selectmen, write to the Air Force to recommend the process incorporated in Alternative E (recognizing that the details seen on the particular chart today would evolve and accepting that evolution), but that the process include the reduction of EDB, all the way downstream, to non-detect and that it include a physical separation of the bogs from the natural stream and recovery, to the extent possible, of the natural stream. Also, continued compensation for losses should be included due to this chemical damage. Mr. Tripp also stated that the Conservation Commission would make every effort to hold these public meetings, not only at the minimal legal public notice standard, but at a more aggressive public notice standard.

Mr. Szymoniak asked if Mr. Tripp favored a phased approach, progressing toward a solution by trying to break it down in phases rather than trying to commit to one complete scope that would cover all of it. Mr. Tripp replied that he had been frustrated during the past series of hearings that things came in such a piecemeal way that one did not have any sense of the whole project. He felt that the community now had a much better sense of what the whole project might be, rather than when it was viewed in a piecemeal fashion.

Ms. Muramoto suggested that the Notice of Intent present as much of everything as possible. She said that it should include all of the ideas in a package, which would be easier to modify later, rather than trying to add significant portions at a later date.

Mr. McLaughlin seconded the motion of the Bog Commission’s recommendation as stated by Mr. Tripp. Mr. Gordon stated that there was consensus in favor of the recommendation, and the motion was carried.

The meeting adjourned at 9:25 PM.