FS-28 Coonamessett River Stakeholder Summit
Quality Inn, Falmouth
September 9, 1998
9:00 A.M. – 3:00 P.M.
Meeting Minutes

Agenda Item 1. Introductions:

Mr. Pat Field of Consensus Building Institute (CBI) convened the meeting at 9:10 A.M. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was for the Air Force to present information on the potential alternatives. He then asked the attendees to introduce themselves. Mr. Field reviewed the agenda and the groundrules. He introduced Ms. Nancy Balkus from the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE).

Ms. Balkus stated that she was brought to the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) program to work on the cranberry issues. She was specifically asked to work on Fuel Spill (FS)-1 and FS-28 and determine what needed to be done with the cranberry bogs and the ethylene dibromide (EDB) plumes. She stated that the first task she was given was to identify the stakeholders involved. She recognized the attendees as being the stakeholders. Ms. Balkus stated that her second task was to identify the issues and concerns that have been raised in the past and develop a plan to address them. Her third task was to pull all that information together into a plan or approach that was acceptable to everyone involved.

Ms. Balkus introduced various other "key players" in this process: Mr. Tom Szymoniak of Jacobs Engineering Group, and Mr. Don Schall. She also thanked Mr. Pat Field, Ms. Sarah Corner, Mr. Mark Escobar, and everyone else involved in this activity for their participation.

Ms. Balkus stated that the purpose of the summit was to present the potential alternatives being considered for the EDB response plan and to provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to have input into the process and make recommendations. She then described the goals of the Stakeholder summit. Ms. Balkus stated that one goal was to determine which alternative will best resolve the EDB problem and meet the community’s needs. The second goal was to reach consensus on a preferred alternative at the September 16, 1998 meeting.

Ms. Balkus displayed a slide that listed the involved stakeholders (See attachment #1, which includes all slides in this presentation). She then summarized the issues and concerns of the Town of Falmouth, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the cranberry growers and the MMR.

Mr. Brian McDermott, a Falmouth resident, asked if the MMR wanted to implement an action to return the bogs to production by the year 2000, or be out of the cranberry business by the year 2000. Ms. Balkus replied that the MMR wanted to return the bogs to normal production by the year 2000.

Ms. Balkus commented that no one stakeholder outweighed any other stakeholder. The wetlands impacts, the community impacts, the fisheries impacts, the cranberry industry impacts, the time factor, the cost, and risk needed to be combined and considered. Ms. Balkus stated in regard to next steps, that there were three options. The first option was to ignore this issue and hope it went away, the second option was to gather more information, evaluate new ideas and try to develop a better solution, and the third option was to reach a compromise on one of the proposed alternatives, and implement it as soon as possible. She commented that hopefully by the end of the day an option somewhere in between option two and option three would be reached.

Ms. Balkus listed the past actions that had been taken. She reported that private well sampling and bottled water distribution has been provided. Private wells have been connected to public water supply in many areas, and wellhead treatment and protection to the Coonamessett Supply well have also been provided. Ms. Balkus reported that an extraction well (EW-1) has been installed at FS-28 as an interim action and was collecting the majority of the plume. She stated that based on the current draw into EW-1, the model estimated that the FS-28 plume would be clean in five to seven years. Ms. Balkus stated that alternate irrigation supplies have also been provided to the growers.

Ms. Balkus briefly described the on-going efforts for FS-28. She reported that a negative easement was currently being negotiated with the town representatives and the growers. She stated that funds are expected to be obligated by September 30, 1998, and payments will be dispersed between October and December 1998 and October and December 1999. She noted that this would compensate the growers for the crops they have been asked not to grow, while a plan was being implemented to resolve the EDB issue.

Ms. Balkus stated that a Technical Working Group has been organized to work on the cranberry testing protocol. The Technical Working Group developed a method to test the cranberries that meets the Food and Drug Administration Testing for food safety. Ms. Balkus stated that a test was scheduled for mid-September 1998. This sampling would be done to determine if the cranberries on the Flax Pond Bogs were marketable and to determine how best to dispose of the cranberries from the other bogs. Ms. Balkus reported that surface water sampling had been conducted for over a year in many locations. Samples were collected on a monthly basis. Ms. Balkus noted that there was an on-going Remedial Investigation (RI) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Superfund process. She explained that this was important because the EDB response plan did not replace the RI. Ms. Balkus stated that the responsibility of the RI under the CERCLA process was to determine the final remedy to clean up the site and to close it out. She noted that today there would be discussion about a two-fold response plan to bring the bogs back into production while ensuring minimal risk to the cranberry workers and recreational users of that surface water. Ms. Balkus stated that the RI would address whether there was a risk to any of the users or potential receptors from groundwater, surface water, or air, and determine a remedy.

Ms. Balkus stated that there were two Kansas State University (KSU) studies being conducted to determine whether EDB can get into the cranberry fruit. She explained that the first study would determine whether EDB could penetrate the skin of the cranberry and into the fruit. The second study will determine whether the vines/roots of the cranberry plants uptake EDB. She stated that the first KSU study was estimated to be complete by January 1999 and the preliminary results from the second study were estimated to be complete by November/December 2000.

Ms. Balkus stated that the bog/river diversion concept would also be discussed today. She then reviewed the FS-28 timeline. She noted that every month surface water samples would be taken at the inlet and outlet of each bog on the Coonamessett River system. Ms. Balkus stated that the RI report would be submitted to the regulatory agencies by the end of October 1998. She stated that the United States Congress has passed authorization for the Air Force to provide compensation to the growers and the towns for a period of two years.

Ms. Balkus stated that in September a decision would hopefully be reached regarding whether an action needed to be implemented, and if so, what the best action would be. Engineering of the solution would begin in October 1999 with construction to begin in November 1999, and completed by March 1999. Ms. Balkus noted that the solution would need to be implemented prior to the end of the compensation time-frame, to ensure that the growers would not be kept out of their industry any longer than necessary. She also noted that construction would be done during the least intrusive time of year as possible.

Mr. McDermott asked how much money was being spent on the bog diversion. Ms. Balkus replied that cost was dependent on which alternative was agreed upon. Mr. McDermott then asked which alternative was the most expensive. Mr. Field stated that during the explanation of the alternatives, implementation cost and time would be discussed.

Ms. Balkus reiterated that an attempt would be made to reach a decision by September 16, 1998.

Agenda Item 3. Review of Investigative Data:

Mr. Szymoniak stated that he would provide an update of the data collected over the last year. He then asked what was the highest concentration of EDB? Ms. Kiley replied the highest concentration was 0.61. Mr. Szymoniak asked when that sample was taken. Ms. Kiley replied that it was taken in June. Mr. Szymoniak clarified that sampling was done in April. He stated that three different types of sampling were done on the Coonamessett River. He displayed a map of the Coonamessett River Bogs. He stated that samples were being collected at the inflow and outflow. Mr. Szymoniak reported that ecological sampling was being done for the Southwest Operable Unit (SWOU) RI, and the highest levels were found in the Baptiste Bog. He stated that routine sampling for risk management started almost a year ago. He noted that twelve stations on the river were being sampled on a bi-weekly basis. Mr. Szymoniak also stated that there was a combination of twenty-five sampling locations. Those locations were being sampled on a monthly basis for the purpose of managing human health risk and exposure, and developing a data base of which bogs were showing contamination and which bogs were not. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the data indicated that the contamination remained in the river. He pointed to the location at which the contamination wanted to up-well. Mr. Szymoniak explained that the EDB would up-well into the river and then flow downriver. He noted the bogs that were separated from the river have remained non-detect, with the exception of the Chaston Bog.

Surface Water:

Mr. Szymoniak then displayed a map of the sampling locations of the Chaston Bogs, the West Thompson Bog and the East Thompson Bog. He stated that the data indicated that the EDB did not want to get into the bogs that were disconnected from the river. He reported that the West Thompson bog remained non-detect. He added that both the inflow and outflow of those bogs continued to be sampled.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that there were still detectable concentrations coming out of Pond 14, and a reduction in concentrations from the inflow and outflow were not being seen. He stated that as the remedial alternatives were explained it would become apparent that trying to get the concentrations in Pond 14 down to a non-detectable level played very heavily in how the alternatives were developed. Mr. Szymoniak reported that the lower bog continued to be non-detect. He stated that there were trace levels in the Reservoir Bog and the Middle Bog. He stated that there were no detections as high as the maximum contaminant level (MCL) which was 0.02. Mr. Szymoniak stated that there was a connection to Flax pond via a small ditch, and asked Mr. Montague if he had used the channel in the past to get water into Flax Pond. Mr. Montague replied he had. He stated that the channel was maintained for fish runs. He stated that Flax Pond itself could only provide enough water to run the Herring run for a few days. Mr. Montague stated that it was necessary to channel water from Pond 14 into Flax Pond in order to have enough continuous flow for the fish run. Mr. Szymoniak stated that one alternative would look at whether there was a way to improve the outlet to get more water. He stated that the goal was to get Pond 14 down to non-detectable levels to ensure that the lower bogs would come into production sooner.

Ms. Cathy Kiley noted that the channel for Flax Pond had been sampled in July and asked if that channel continued to be sampled. Mr. Szymoniak replied that there was no water in that channel at that time. She then asked if it was routinely sampled when there was water in the channel. Mr. Szymoniak replied that yes it was routinely sampled.

Ms. Gail MacRae asked if there were detections in LaSalle Bog. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the LaSalle Bog was not disconnected from the river and therefore would continue to have detections. She asked if the irrigation well that had been installed was non-detect for EDB? Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was important to remember to differentiate between surface water and groundwater. He pointed out that the well Ms. MacRae referred to was approximately 50 feet deep and was sampled and determined to be non-detect in terms of groundwater. Mr. Szymoniak noted that these wells would continue to be sampled on a monthly basis.

Air Sampling:

Mr. Szymoniak reported that an air-sampling event was conducted in July and August of 1997. He pointed to the location of the highest concentrations of EDB. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH) identified a potential risk for human health exposure through air. He stated that seven different air measurements were taken over a two-week period and the highest level reported was 0.007 nanogram parts per volume. When that information was factored in, and a risk assessment was conducted on those numbers, it was determined that the level was within the risk range from the US EPA. He reported that it was during this time frame that the higher concentrations were detected at Station 14. Mr. Szymoniak stated that another sampling event was conducted in April 1998.

Mr. Szymoniak displayed a map of the shallow groundwater drive points. He pointed to a line of detections in the shallow groundwater. Mr. Szymoniak reported that twenty-six out of seventy shallow drive points had detections. He pointed to the location of the highest levels detected (the wetland area off of Broad River) and reported that the highest detection was 1.4 parts per billion (ppb). Mr. Szymoniak reported that measurements were also taken when the bogs were flooded to see how that changed the concentrations.

Mr. Steve Spear asked how deep the drive points were? Mr. Szymoniak replied that the drive points were four feet deep.

Groundwater:

Mr. Szymoniak stated that thirty groundwater monitoring wells had been installed within the area of the contamination. He stated that approximately sixteen wells were being sampled on a quarterly basis. The groundwater data suggested a deeper plume beginning to upwell (he pointed to the location of the upwelling) and have strong vertical gradients. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to where a lower piece was found which was bounded by several wells. Those wells had detections at fifteen feet in December 1996 and a ten-foot layer was detected at approximately 100 feet. Mr. Szymoniak reported that there were six leading edge wells located downgradient of the "finger" of the plume. He pointed to the location where the remainder of the plume wanted to upwell.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that before EW-1 was turned on, the highest levels detected were seventeen ppb at 69MW1304. He reported a "hot spot" with detected levels of ten to seventeen ppb. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the plume was approximately 1000 feet wide, and there were non-detect wells on either side used to help define the plume itself.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Temperature Trends:

Mr. Szymoniak reported that temperature and DO measurements in different parts of the river were taken this summer. He stated that when EW-1 was turned on, there was a problem with low DO. A vertical bubbler had since been installed and the DO level has increased. Mr. Szymoniak stated that a probe was used at two different locations to measure the affects of the river on the temperature and the DO. He stated that the measurements were taken in July 1998, and the temperature of the samples within the bog and the DO within the bog had a very strong diurnal affect. Mr. Szymoniak reported that the DO was very high during the day and very low at night.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that the temperature upgradient was steady at 25 degrees Celsius. He commented that the groundwater gradient wanted to suppress groundwater, and therefore there was no upwelling in the groundwater before it reached the Baptiste Bogs. Mr. Szymoniak stated that further south there were influences from the EW-1 discharge and the groundwater.

Ms. Kiley asked Mr. Szymoniak to point out the location for 69SW0019.

Conceptual Site Model:

Mr. Szymoniak then displayed a slide titled "EDB Isoconcentration Along Cross-Section A-A’ of FS-28". He reported that the concentrations were based before EW-1 was installed. Mr. Szymoniak stated that additional wells were currently being sampled. He noted that there were concentrations in MW1300 as high as 0.3 ppb. If the model was correct than there was another small piece of the plume upwelling that was greater than what would have been predicted.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that upgradient wells located in the small "finger" were being sampled in order to determine what happened to the concentrations. He stated that a screening well would be installed at two locations. Mr. Szymoniak reported that the conceptual model indicated that the majority of the plume wanted to upwell and come into the Coonamessett River (he pointed to the location). He stated that the monitoring results did not currently agree with the model. Mr. Szymoniak reported that EW-1 was installed to prevent the hot spot from upwelling.

Mr. Mike Jasinski, of the US EPA, asked when the screening wells would be installed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that they would be installed within the next month. He noted that one well will be installed between 69MW1295 and 69MW1296 and another well will be installed between 69MW1285 and 69MW1303.

Mr. McDermott asked why money was being spent on screening wells now, if a decision was going to be made next week. Mr. Szymoniak replied that if the wells were installed, the alternatives would not change. He said that the intent was to determine how affective EW-1 was at removing the "hot spot". That information may help better understand how the model was performing.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that one of the response actions was the installation of EW-1. He pointed to the location of EW-1 and reported that this well was pumping at a rate of 780 gallons per minute (gpm). Mr. Szymoniak noted that this was a granular activated carbon system that was equipped with two canisters of carbon one to be used as a back up. Mr. Szymoniak stated that to date the carbon canisters have been changed twice. He stated that a pump test had been completed within the first five days of operation. The pump test data will be used to recalibrate the model.

Mr. Szymoniak displayed a model of the particle tracks. He explained that this was from a piece of the "Zoom Box" in the groundwater model. The slide showed particle tracks that were seeded at Hatchville Road. Mr. Szymoniak reported that this cross-section was proposed in December 1996. He explained that the cross-section was a seeding of particles that resemble the plume at a particular location. Particles would be seeded into the model to determine where they went in the hydraulic conditions implemented by the model. Mr. Szymoniak reported that with the well turned on, the majority of the plume was captured by EW-1. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to the location of 69MW1303 and noted that at 600 gpm it could be pulling some contamination back.

Ms. Kiley commented that she wanted to clarify that this was just a model prediction of the upwelling and groundwater flow. She asked if there was a more updated cross section of the plume available, once EW-1 was turned on. Mr. Szymoniak replied that more sampling would be done to update the cross section. Ms. Kiley noted that the cross section Mr. Szymoniak displayed was dated 1996.

Mr. Szymoniak reported that the concentrations on October 17, 1998 were approximately 4.1 ppb. He went on to say that on December 20, 1998 the concentrations dropped to approximately 0.8 ppb.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that there were approximately 1100 data points from which information was used to create a three dimensional plume shell. He stated that the plume shell allowed for the calculation of the volume of the contaminant mass, which represented approximately seven kilograms of EDB. Mr. Szymoniak stated that different alternatives were modeled for the EW-1 evaluation report that was issued in March. He stated that Alternative A, "No Action", did not include the installation of EW-1. Alternative B1 included EW-1 pumping at a rate of 600 gpm. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the mass removal was considered for one year, two years, five years, ten years and fifteen years. Alternative B2 included EW-1 pumping at 400 gpm. He noted that there was not a lot of difference between pumping 400 gpm and 600 gpm. Mr. Szymoniak reported that Alternative C, Alternative D, and Alternative E were also modeled. He reported that Alternative C included EW-2. Alternative D looked at installing a third extraction well. Mr. Szymoniak concluded that between Alternatives "A", "B", "C", and "D" the same amount of removal was obtained with EW-1 pumping alone. He stated that the pumping rate could be as low as 400 gpm and the same mass removal would be achieved. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to the portion of the plume that would not be captured and go to the Coonamessett River. He stated that after fifteen years approximately twenty-two percent of that mass would have been lost to the Coonamessett River.

Ms. Liz Koulheras asked if Mr. Szymoniak was implying that if more wells were added the removal would be the same? Mr. Szymoniak replied it would. Ms. Kouhleras then asked if the time period could be shortened. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the time period would not necessarily be shortened. He noted that the last alternative discussed included shallow drive points, however a larger volume would be pumped in order to "keep up". Mr. Szymoniak stated that pumping a large volume could reduce the timeframe. He remarked that Alternative D, which was pumping 1100 gpm, resulted in pumping clean water.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that the modeling was done to determine if installing additional extraction wells would result in better mass capture and better mass removal. The results of modeling indicated that would not necessarily happen. Mr. Szymoniak commented that Alternative E involved installing drive points and pumping a large volume, which may be successful.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that he was providing information regarding what had been done, what would be done, and how the alternatives were developed. He stated that the EW-1 Mass Removal/Modeling table had not been included in the report that was issued in March.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that, based on the model, the piece of the plume that migrated beyond EW-1 would clean itself out within a course of seven to ten years. He stated that the concentrations that surfaced were used to calculate the risk to cranberry workers, and the risk was determined to be marginal. The model predicted that EW-1 would need to remain in operation for ten years.

Ms. Kiley asked where the ten year figure came from. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the data indicated that the concentrations in the well start to go to no-detect. Ms. Kiley then asked if EW-1 was turned off, would the rest of the FS-28 plume continue to discharge? Mr. Szymoniak replied that the concentrations were so low, that by the time they reached the surface it would likely be non-detect. Ms. Kiley asked if there were high concentrations of EDB around the Coonamessett Pond. Mr. Szymoniak replied that those would probably reach the EW-1 well within ten years. He reiterated that this would need to be re-considered in the Feasibility Study (FS). He stated that there was additional data collection in the Crane Wildlife, which could now be used to generate another plume shell to look at this alternative and determine how long the EW-1 would need to remain in operation. Mr. Szymoniak stated that there was still some uncertainty in terms of the concentrations of the uncaptured portion of the plume. He noted that although there was a model, it may not be correct and, therefore, the model needed to be monitored.

Surface Water Trends:

Mr. Szymoniak stated that since January 1997, measurements of the Coonamessett had been taken at four different locations; Station 58, Station 6, Station 46 and Station 49. He reported that the EW-1 well went on-line in October 1997. Mr. Szymoniak reported the data indicated that until February 1998, Station 58 and Station 6 "mirrored" each other. He explained that there was no groundwater recharging in that particular reach. Mr. Szymoniak noted that a lot more water had been going into the abandoned bog. Mr. Montague stated that about a year and half-ago cement bags had been placed down stream of the culvert in order to elevate the water enough to allow the fish to get through the culvert.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that the elevations had been rising, and consequently more water was being lost to the abandoned bog. This trend will need to be monitored. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the stations were measured on a monthly basis. He noted that the peak flows in the river were seen in April/May, and the lowest points in October/November. Mr. Szymoniak commented that discharge would continue to be measured.

Mr. Szymoniak displayed a slide showing the EDB concentration versus time in the surface water of the Coonamessett River. He noted that 69SW0014 was located at the confluence of the Broad River and the Coonamessett River, where higher concentrations were seen. Mr. Szymoniak stated that 69SW0024 was located at the outlet of the Baptiste Bog, and 69SW0049 was located just before the Coonamessett River went into Pond 14. He reported that 69SW0014 showed the highest detection. The average concentration in the river at 69SW0014 was approximately 0.15 ppb. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the intent was to evaluate what happened to EW-1 with the surface water concentrations, and to determine if they will drop over time. He stated that the model showed that a significant drop in the surface water concentrations was not expected for about a year. Mr. Szymoniak stated that additional data collection was needed to determine whether the trend held true.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that the Baptiste Bog was flooded in October 1997. EDB concentrations were then measured every two days at two stations (69SW0024 and at 69SW0049). He noted that the concentrations were fairly high before the bogs were flooded. The bog became flooded by October 11, 1997 and there were still detectable levels in the Baptiste Bogs, however the concentrations were approximately 0.01 ppb. Mr. Szymoniak stated that non-detect was achieved in Pond 14. He stated that there could be levels of EDB in the river system at the Baptiste Bog, while still achieving non-detect at Pond 14.

Mr. Costa asked if the heavy rain that occurred in the spring and the early summer factored in to interpreting the results this year. Mr. Szymoniak said that this was a groundwater fed stream and therefore, storm events did not necessarily have a big affect on the stream itself, with the exception of times the bogs were flooded.

Groundwater Trends:

Mr. Szymoniak displayed a slide of monitoring wells, which had been sampled on a quarterly basis. He noted that 69MW1284A and 69MW1284B were located immediately upgradient of EW-1 and 69MW1303A and 69MW1303B were located approximately 300 to 400 feet downgradient. He noted that the "A’s" were the higher screens. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to the zone of the EW-1 influence. He noted that these wells were located above a silt layer. He stated that the concentrations both upgradient and downgradient remained fairly high. Mr. Szymoniak reported that before the well was turned on, the upgradient station 69MW1284 was up as high as 11 ppb and has currently stabilized at around 8 ppb. Mr. Szymoniak expressed a concern with regard to EW-1, because the plume was very thick at Hatchville Road and there was a possibility that the contamination could go over the top and not be captured by a well. He stated that currently, due to the pumping, the polar depression was very steep at the top and wider at the bottom. Mr. Szymoniak commented that because the data was not as clear as it could have been, a well needed to be drilled outside the radius of influence. He stated that he would have expected that the downgradient well would have started to drop-off, and until the August sampling results, that trend was holding true. He went on to say, however, that the August results indicated a higher detection of approximately 6 parts per million (ppm). Mr. Szymoniak stated that it was important to make sure that the 6 ppm was not rising to the surface.

Mr. Szymoniak displayed a graph of the EDB concentrations at 69MW1285 and 69MW1291. He reported that 69MW1285 was the first well installed in October 1996, and had a detection of EDB at fifteen feet. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the concentrations were expected to rise for awhile and then decrease. There was no discernable trend in terms of the data. Mr. Szymoniak commented that the Broad River influence, providing clean water into the plume, could have dropped the concentrations; however, that trend had not yet been seen. He pointed to the location of 69MW1291A and stated that at this location, clean water was being seen underneath the plume. Mr. Szymoniak stated that 69MW1291B seemed to have the same trend in terms of the concentrations being seen. He noted that the "B" well was deeper than the "A" well.

Mr. Szymoniak displayed a graph of the EDB concentrations at 69MW1300. He pointed to the location of this well and noted that it was on the Augusta Dike. He commented that a small "finger" of the plume had been identified at approximately 100 feet deep. He stated that there were approximately six downgradient wells that would continue to be monitored. Mr. Szymoniak reported that those wells were non-detect as of August 1998.

Ms. Kiley asked Mr. Szymoniak to interpret why there was not much change in concentration in the downgradient wells. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to the location of the EW-1 influence and stated that it may take another year before the affects would be seen. He stated that within the next few months, the concentrations might drop; however he expected them to slowly increase or remain the same. Ms. Kiley asked if Mr. Szymoniak had considered an extraction well north of Hatchville Road. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was not part of what was being done. He stated that would be covered in the FS. Ms. Kiley then asked if it was clear that, when looking at EW-1 and potential interim actions, like adding additional wells, there was still a focus on additional wells between Hatchville and Turner Road. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the investigation had been focussed on everything south of Hatchville Road.

Ms. Muramoto asked if bog flooding affected the concentration of EDB in the groundwater. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he did not know that answer. He stated that more sampling was needed.

Ms. Selman asked if when clean water was introduced into a bog area there was no drop in the concentration in the plume, as was expected. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to where clean water was being discharged. He pointed to the location where treated groundwater was discharging at a rate of 1.5 CFS. He stated that the concentration levels were probably lower; however, there was no discernable pattern. Mr. Szymoniak stated that it could have an affect, although it would not likely be a large affect. Ms. Selman asked if reintroducing clean water would have a positive affect. Mr. Szymoniak replied that most certainly it would have a positive affect.

Mr. Tripp commented that the issue might be dilution of the stream water with clean treated water that was pumped from the wells. Mr. Szymoniak stated that clean water was being added to the location of the upwelling at 600 gpm, and therefore there would be some dilution. He referred to the slide titled "Coonamessett River – Surface Water, EDB Concentration vs. Time" (page 29) and pointed to where the clean water would be added at a rate of 600 gpm. He stated that as clean water was added, there was a possibility of dilution. Mr. Tripp asked what the relative importance was of the two processes, the dilution with the clean treated water, versus the depression of the plume and not allowing it to come up into the river. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the actual changing of the heads was greater than the dilution of adding clean water.

Mr. Szymoniak summarized that the concentrations could be changed by controlling the flooding of the bogs. He also stated that monitoring needed to continue to ensure that the hypotheses were correct.

Ms. Selman asked why not close the bogs until the problem was solved. Mr. Szymoniak replied that closure was one of the options. Ms. Selman commented that the closure option was the answer.

Ms. MacRae asked if it was correct to say that when the bogs were flooded, there was non-detect in the surface water; however the influence of the EDB on the groundwater was unknown. Mr. Szymoniak replied that there was not enough data to answer that question. He commented that if the bogs were flooded for a long period of time, the migration up may be slowed. Mr. Szymoniak noted that there was an attempt to keep the hydraulic heads the same as going through the alternatives.

Mr. Field provided a summary of the first half of the morning session. He stated that there was a three pronged approach and additional work was needed. The EW-1 well was in place and being monitored. Mr. Field noted that this was tied to a larger investigation, the SWOU and the RIFS process under CERCLA. The RIFS addressed the risk and whether EW-1 was enough, or if additional work was necessary. Mr. Field stated that another issue being discussed was the idea of a bog/river separation plan for surface water. Mr. Field stated that ongoing monitoring was occurring in stream flows, at different locations in the surface water and also at different depths within the groundwater. Mr. Field listed the key issues/concerns that had been raised: (1) the portion of the groundwater plume going past EW-1, (2) bog flooding decreasing the upwelling from the groundwater to the surface water, which in-turn decreases the surface water concentrations, and (3) uncertain trends in terms of below EW-1. Mr. Field then turned the meeting over to Ms. Balkus to explain the alternatives.

Ms. Balkus stated that Alternative A was a Buy Out. She explained that EW-1 will continue to operate and the Air Force could either acquire the land, continue to acquire the crop by compensating the growers and the town, or via a long-term lease. Ms. Balkus explained that during the five to ten year period, the Air Force would provide the compensation and maintain the bogs in a useable condition. She stated that some controls may be installed to limit access if necessary. Ms. Balkus stated that sampling and monitoring would also continue.

Ms. Balkus listed the advantages to this alternative:

• No disruption to the current use of the bogs
• The bogs and channel would be maintained
• The exposure to food chain would be limited

Ms. Balkus then listed the disadvantages to this alternative:

• The bogs would not be able to go to harvest for a period of seven to ten years
• There would be no improvement to the bogs to be able to separate them from the river or from the contamination
• Additional legislative authority from congress was necessary

Mr. McDermott said that earlier he had asked how much money was available for these various alternatives, because in his opinion the bogs should be bought and their use as cranberry bogs terminated. He then asked how much money was available for the possible purchase, and how much did each alternative cost. Ms. Balkus replied that the Coonamessett part of this system cost approximately $700,000.00 per year to buy out the crop. She stated that this figure was based on buying the crop and did not include purchasing the land. Ms. Balkus noted that she did not have a dollar amount for that real estate investment.

Mr. Spear asked if this would apply to all the bogs, or part of them the Lower Baptiste for example. Ms. Balkus replied that at this time a complete buy out was proposed. She went on to say, however, that in the discussions this afternoon, it may become evident that it would be most cost affective or beneficial to buy out some bogs and no longer have them in production, and do something else for the other bogs.

Mr. Patton asked if the options were to acquire the land, acquire the crop, or a long-term lease. He asked if acquiring the land without then generating any revenue from it, was an option. Ms. Balkus replied that acquiring the land was a possibility. She commented that the United States Air Force did not usually purchase land. Mr. Patton asked if that was still part of Alternative A. Ms. Balkus replied it was.

A member of the audience asked if the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with Alternative A in cooperation with the community, as opposed to buying out the community, had been considered. Ms. Balkus replied that those ideas needed to be explored further. She added that the alternatives would not be completely developed without input from the stakeholders. She emphasized that these ideas were brought to the table in order to explore them cooperatively.

Mr. Costa asked for a definition of "bog maintenance" in terms of water management, and pesticide and fertilizer application. Ms. Balkus replied whatever long-term decision was made will determine the required level of maintenance. She stated that if the town wanted the bogs to be in operation, she proposed that the bogs would be maintained as usual, with the exception of actually producing the crop.

Mr. Bicki asked why the funding could not come out of the Department of Defense (DoD), rather than having to go to the Legislature on a year to year basis. He asked why the DoD fund could not buy the cranberries as a food commodity, and then destroy them. Ms. Balkus replied that currently the Air Force was funded under the Environmental Restoration Account, specifically for environmental cleanup. She stated that there were other DoD funding mechanisms, however she was not aware of them. Mr. Bicki then asked if destroying the cranberries would not be part of the remediation. Ms. Balkus replied not necessarily. Mr. Bicki suggested exploring that possibility.

Ms. MacRae asked how the berries would be prevented from forming. She commented that this year, the proposed plan did not appear to have worked, because there were berries on the bogs. Ms. Balkus replied that this year the timing was "off" in terms of flooding the bogs to prevent the flowers from appearing. She stated that next year the flooding would be timed better. She noted that the vines needed to go through a regular growing cycle in order to be maintained in a healthy condition.

Ms. MacRae remarked that Ocean Spray used a certain amount of their cranberries for research. She asked why Ocean Spray could not buy the berries, if there was no EDB detection, and use them in their research. Mr. Bicki replied that he was not sure what Ms. MacRae was referring to in terms of "research berries". Ms. MacRae stated that in the past people have said that Ocean Spray did not take a loss, because they used berries to test, to sample, and for other research. Mr. Bicki stated that he worked in the research group at Ocean Spray, and he was not aware of the purchasing of any berries for research. He stated that the research was related primarily to production and insect control, and not to the manufacturing end of using contaminated fruit. Ms. MacRae asked if Ocean Spray used cranberries to determine if there were ways to improve the production of cranberries, or use less pesticides. Mr. Bicki replied that would not be related to these particular bogs. He stated that Ocean Spray did not dictate how the 750 farmers, that were member of the cooperative, should grow their crop. He suggested that the University of Massachusetts (UMASS) might be interested in pursuing that option. Ms. Balkus noted that the UMASS experiment station was a good idea.

Ms. Selman asked why not let the bogs go dormant rather than fertilizing and spraying. She noted that a lot of money could be saved, and then used to replant the bogs with fresh, clean, healthy vines. Ms. Balkus replied that the town owned the land, and therefore the Air Force could not decide what to do with the land. She also stated that it required three to five years to establish a cranberry bog, which would be avoided if the bogs were maintained. Ms. Selman commented that the plants were already unhealthy. Ms. Balkus stated that KSU was currently conducting two studies to determine if the berries absorb EDB through the skin and also to determine if EDB could uptake into the plants. She stated that it could not definitively be said that the cranberries were contaminated.

Ms. Selman remarked that with all the research on the bogs, the effort to keep them stable for seven years, and all the money that would be spent, it made sense to just "let the crop go" and refurbish the bogs in five years. She stated that this was a contaminated area anyway, and more contamination would be added by spraying for bugs when the berries would not even be eaten. Ms. Selman stated that this did not make sense.

Mr. Montague asked what had been learned about when the bogs needed to be flooded to keep them from flowering. He commented that if the bogs needed to be flooded earlier, there may be conflicts with the fish running. He stated that a new ladder system would need to be considered to allow the fish to migrate up. Ms. Balkus stated that there were four different kinds of vines on the bogs. She explained that different vines bloomed at different times, and therefore, a different flooding source may be needed to ensure that each vine type could be flooded when its respective flowers were blooming.

Mr. Jasinski asked if the $700,000.00 per year was just for the buyout and did not include the cost of EW-1 for seven to ten years. Mr. Szymoniak replied that on a routine basis there would be three carbon change-outs at a cost of $20,000.00 each. Mr. Jasinski asked if it was correct to say that for all the alternatives EW-1 would cost about $100,000.00 per year. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct.

Ms. Balkus noted that although she did not discuss the "No Action" Alternative, there was a possibility of doing nothing.

Agenda Item 5. Alternative B – EW-1 and Channel Realignment:

Mr. Szymoniak briefly explained Alternative B. He stated that Alternative B included EW-1 and realigning the channel in the Baptiste Bog. Mr. Szymoniak stated that when the cranberries needed to be harvested, there was a conflict with the herring migration, and it might be beneficial to separate the bogs from the river and leave out the river on one side of the stream. This will separate where the EDB was actually upwelling, preventing it from coming back up into the river system. Mr. Szymoniak stated that portion of the channel would be lined in order to prevent the water from upwelling into the river system. He said that there was a concern about temperature, and therefore temperature and DO measurements were done. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the channel would be realigned from the beginning of the Baptiste Bog and through the Baptiste Bog, approximately 3100 feet. He stated that an interior and exterior berm would be created. He stated that the interior berms will be approximately ten feet wide and the exterior berms will be approximately fifteen feet wide. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the channel was approximately nine feet wide. He stated that some of the dikes will be raised in order to provide more storage capacity, and two basins will also be created in order to look at the passive treatment of the EDB. He stated that Alternative B included two diffuser barriers and a floating baffle. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the intent was to drop the EDB concentrations to about ten fold.

Mr. Szymoniak listed the advantages of Alternative B:

• separates the flow to control upwelling
• improves the fish pathways
• created a riparian zone on the homeowner side of the river

Mr. Szymoniak then listed the disadvantages of Alternative B:

• disrupts the current channel
• relies on the understanding of water movement
• EDB in the upper river system

Mr. Szymoniak noted that Alternative B did not include treatment, but rather relied on passive treatment and controlling the flooding of the bogs.

Mr. McDermott asked if there will still be flow through the bog south of Thomas B. Landers Road, with the apparent problems of herbicides and pesticides gaining access into the river. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. He stated in regard to the East Thompson Bog, that EDB was still possibly in the river. Mr. Szymoniak stated that with this alternative, there was a possibility that the East Thompson Bog would go out of production.

Mr. Bicki asked what would happen if the channel was lined for 3000 feet, considering the upwelling would still be occurring. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the upwelling would not be occurring in this particular channel. Mr. Bicki noted that even if the upwelling did not occur in that channel, it would "squeegee" to some place. Mr. Szymoniak remarked that the idea was that it would squeegee to the inside. He stated that the purpose of the basins was to create more of a preferential flow path for the upwelling to occur inside the basin.

Mr. Gordon asked about the approximate acreage lost with Alternative B. Mr. Szymoniak replied a total of nine acres could be lost.

Mr. Spear asked if the entire Lower Baptiste Bog would be taken out of production. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the Lower Baptiste Bog was out of production, with the exception of one acre. He went on to say that the upper bog, which represented approximately a half an acre, may also be taken out of production.

Ms. Selman noted that realigning the channels would also entail providing and using alternative water sources. Mr. Szymoniak replied that an alternative water source might need to be provided, due to the EDB in the river. Ms. Selman commented that looking at the West Thompson Bog, the Augusta Bog, and the East Thompson Bog, it seemed unthinkable to use Round Pond as an alternative water source. Mr. Szymoniak stated that this was part of the phased option. He stated that the river was now clean, and if the levels of non-detect were maintained, there was no need to use Round Pond in Alternative B.

Ms. Kouhleras commented that Mr. Szymoniak just stated that the river water would be clean; however under "Disadvantages" it was listed that EDB would still be in the upper river system. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the river was only non-detect when it was flooded.

Ms. Koulheras asked if the loss of nine to ten acres referred to all bogs. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. Ms. Kouhleras then asked what the best estimates were that the upwelling would occur in the basins, if the stream were lined. Mr. Szymoniak replied the upwelling was being kept out of the river, and a preferential flow path was being provided. He stated that the channel would be moved to the outside edge where there was very little groundwater that upwelled. He also stated that because of the berms, there was no place for the water to upwell until it reached the bog.

Ms. Koulheras asked if there would still be cranberry bogs on the side of the river where the basins were located. Mr. Szymoniak replied those bogs would be out of production. Ms. Koulheras asked what was the volume of material that would be removed to create the basins. Mr. Szymoniak replied three feet over approximately four acres would be removed. Ms. Koulheras asked if analysis had yet been done on the soils that would be removed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the soils were all sand. He added that the drive points were done, and there was sludge material in the channel. Ms. Koulheras noted that there was organic mass on top of the sand. She also noted that this would be a large volume of material to try to dispose of, and there needed to be a thought of whether there were any contaminants in that soil and where the soil would go. Mr. Szymoniak stated that sampling had been done for ecological purposes and high levels of contamination were not found. He stated that there was a possibility that some of the sediment could contain EDB because of high moisture content in the solids.

Ms. Koulheras asked if sampling was done for other contaminants that might be associated with bog production, and not necessarily EDB. Mr. Szymoniak replied testing had not been done for pesticides.

Ms. Kiley asked what would be the depth of the pond if it were created in the Lower Baptiste area. Mr. Szymoniak replied three feet. Ms. Kiley then asked if the heads would be maintained to allow the upwelling to continue. Mr. Szymoniak replied they would. Ms. Kiley clarified that for normal operations, and not during the harvest, the heads would be maintained. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. Ms. Kiley then asked if the water would flow in its’ normal flow path over the weirs. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. Ms. Kiley asked if there was a contingency for EDB still in the river at that point, and what exactly the flow would be one or two days? Mr. Szymoniak replied approximately two days.

Mr. Koehler asked what would happen to the water in these ponds. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was a flow through system, it would come out and go back into the river. Mr. Koehler asked what the purpose was of the pond. Mr. Szymoniak replied the purpose of the pond was to separate the river in order to flood independently of the fish run. He added that the heads could be controlled without having to worry about the fish run. Mr. Koehler then noted that this would not get rid of the EDB. He commented that it appeared as though the pond would be used to allow the EDB to gradually "get out into the air". Mr. Szymoniak replied that half of the solution was volatilization. He stated that there may be some loss through volatilization, however, not of a great proportion.

Mr. McDermott asked if the fish would be going into that pond. Mr. Szymoniak replied the fish would be going to the new channel and back to the river. Mr. McDermott then asked what was the cost of this alternative. Mr. Szymoniak replied $650,000.000, which included a "one shot" construction and the loss of a couple of bogs. Mr. McDermott commented that cost did not consider the lost production of the bogs or the cost of EW-1 operation.

Agenda Item 6.Alternative C1 and C2 – EW-1 and Channel Realignment and Treatment:

Mr. Szymoniak briefly explained that Alternative C relied on using the same basin concept, however not actually creating the ponds, but rather doing the removal using shallow groundwater well points. He noted that the well points were approximately 50 feet in depth and located in the areas of the detections found from the drive point sampling. Mr. Szymoniak stated that pumping at rates of 1500 gpm and 1800 gpm were considered. He pointed to the header pipes, which would be located on the ground surface. Mr. Szymoniak stated that in the winter the bogs might be flooded. The water would be taken out and taken back to the treatment plant, which would need to be expanded in order to handle the volume of water. He stated that the current treatment plant would be increased from 600 gpm to about 2400 gpm, which would remove the shallow groundwater and discharge the volume back into four different locations. He noted that the increased pumping rate was effective at reaching non-detectable levels. Mr. Szymoniak stated that power would need to be provided to the pump house building. The basins were a back-up if there were a power failure. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the treatment plant building would need to be expanded, and a secondary road would need to be created.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that Alternative C cost approximately five million dollars. The operating cost would run approximately $200,000.00 per year, and six acres of bogs would be lost.

Mr. Szymoniak listed the Advantages of Alternative C:

• Gets entire river to non-detect
• Flexible in terms of location of well points
• Protects the public

Mr. Szymoniak then listed the Disadvantages of Alternative C:

• Treating a large volume
• Iron bacteria and fouling
• Operation and maintenance
• A pilot test was necessary to identify the location of the wells

Ms. Selman asked about the iron and bacteria level. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the iron levels detected ranged from 400 to 500 ppm. He stated that the level used for treatment was about 300ppm, which was also the secondary drinking water standard. Mr. Szymoniak stated that at fifteen feet the iron levels would still be fairly low, and hopefully be passed through the carbon system without having to do treatment.

Ms. Selman then commented that Round Pond was a small pond that had an iron level of 1.3, noting that the acceptable drinking water level was 0.3. She stated that she had to triple filter her water for drinking. She stated that her well was at thirty feet. Mr. Szymoniak stated that a pilot test would be important. He explained that approximately twenty gpm would be pumped, which was not a large volume per well. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the iron levels may vary depending on the location in the bog.

Ms. Selman commented that when alternative water sources were used to take care of these bogs, it would affect the drinking water sources in wells around the area that were not affected by EDB. She went on to say that water would be taken from a shallow tiny pond, where a lot of wildlife and fowl took refuge. She noted that the wildlife population had tripled in the last few years. Ms. Selman also commented that it took a long time to bring the level of Round Pond back up. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the entire pond would not be drained. He noted that the acceptable level that that pond would be lowered was less than half a foot.

Ms. Selman noted there were three bogs that were separated from the river. Mr. Szymoniak stated that all the water that went to the other bogs would come from the river where it currently came from, and not from Round Pond. Ms. Selman commented that there must be a misprint in the handout, because it stated that the Augusta Bog was already separated from the river, and an alternative water source was needed, such as Round Pond. Mr. Szymoniak stated that Ms. Selman was referring to Alternative E.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that the second part to this alternative, Alternative C2, did not include realignment of the channels, but rather installation of a header pipe, and operation of EW-1.

A member of the audience asked if the source of the EDB that was being treated was bypassing the extraction well. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. The audience member then asked if it was correct to say that a small fraction of what was in the plume was currently being dealt with, because most of it was captured upstream. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. He stated that the majority of the mass was captured with EW-1. He went on to say that there was a piece that could not be captured by EW-1, and an attempt would be made to capture it with the shallow groundwater. The audience member asked what was the fraction being dealt with in the treatments downstream. Mr. Szymoniak replied twenty-six percent of the overall mass. The audience member asked if the difference between Alternative B and Alternative C was that the treatment in "B" was, creation of the ponds and dilution, which were more "natural" processes, and Alternative C included more "engineering" processes. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. He stated that the idea of the basins was to provide clean water when the bogs needed to be flooded.

Mr. Montague asked if water could be sent back to the Coonamessett Pond to help maintain the pond level in dry periods, if more extraction were done and more water were moved. He asked if that was a viable option. Mr. Szymoniak replied that in this reach of the stream the groundwater was suppressed and tended to have a lower gradient that lost water in this particular reach. He stated that the best improvement might be to get more water out of Coonamessett Pond. He stated that the contamination in the plume would hopefully "go away" at some point. Mr. Szymoniak stated that adding water now would make more sense than running the water for ten to fifteen years.

Ms. Kiley asked if it was correct to say that Alternative C2 did not include realigning the river and therefore basins would not be generated, the drive points would be installed and the water would be pumped back up for treatment. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. Ms. Kiley then asked if there was any lost acreage with this alternative. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the same bogs would be lost. He noted there would be pipes on the bog, however there was a possibility of working around the pipes to continue using the bogs. He stated that the Baptiste Bog would need to be used to control the flooding. Ms. Kiley asked if the East Thompson Bog would also be lost. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was likely.

Agenda Item 7. Alternative D – EW-1 and Separate All Bogs:

Mr. Szymoniak briefly explained that Alternative D included operation of EW-1, realignment of the East Thompson bog, construction of berms on either sides of the river and provision of alternative flood water or management water. He stated that this Alternative relied on the upwelling in the Lower Baptiste Bog to be controlled in order to provide the clean water for flooding. He noted that the source of the water was from the river.

Mr. Szymoniak listed the advantages of Alternative D:

• separates the entire bog system from the river
• improves the fish pathway
• in line with Town strategy

Mr. Szymoniak then listed the disadvantages of Alternative D:

• no buffer for floods
• need alternative water sources for flooding

Mr. Field asked how much Alternative D cost. Mr. Szymoniak replied the realignment materials would cost approximately nine to ten dollars a foot and approximately 10,000 feet would be needed. He stated that there was no loss of bogs associated with this alternative. He noted that one acre for every ten acres would be lost for installing the berm.

A member of the audience asked if water control measures could be designed into this alternative, in order to retain the water on the bog in times of nutrient or chemical application. Mr. Szymoniak replied there would be an inflow and outflow structure to control the water.

Ms. Selman commented that again this option required alternative water sources for flooding. She noted that there were three bogs that were already separated from the river, and there was mention of Round Pond as an alternate water source. Mr. Szymoniak stated that was one option. He stated that the other option was to use treated water from EW-1 at 600 gpm as alternative water. Ms. Selman stated that Round Pond could not be used. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the purpose of this summit was to receive and evaluate that kind of input. Ms. Selman then commented that she had not seen anyone evaluating "anything". She suggested discussing other options. Mr. Szymoniak stated that Round Pond was one option. Ms. Selman noted that the activity taking place in this area has driven wildlife to Round Pond. Mr. Szymoniak continued that other alternative sources being considered were town water, or treated water from EW-1. Ms. Selman commented that when she has problems with her water, she was not allowed to take water from anywhere she wanted.

Ms. Shea asked what studies had been done before going into Round Pond. Ms. Shea commented that she saw the pond at its lowest in 1997. She then asked if Jenkins Pond, Spectacle Pond, or Shallow Pond would be used. She also asked how much water would be taken out per day. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the pond was sampled a year ago and the DO, temperature and depth of the pond was measured. He stated that surveying was also done to determine if the pond could be connected to the bog because of the gradient. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the water that would be drawn was about 600 gpm and only used to flood the bogs for winter protection. He stated that the two bogs also provided water for harvesting. He stated that approximately one foot over nine acres would be drawn over the course of three weeks. Mr. Szymoniak noted that the water would be taken out over a slow period of time to avoid dropping the elevation at Round Pond to unacceptable levels.

Ms. Shea commented that she strongly objected to any water being taken out of Round Pond. She also stated that she was not aware of this meeting until late last night and that explained the low attendance of residents.

Ms. Kiley asked if the local towns had been asked about the capacity, in terms of using a public water supply for these activities. Mr. Szymoniak replied that Ms. Balkus has spoken with Ms. Virginia Valiela, a Falmouth Selectman. Ms. Kiley asked if the response was positive. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he did not have that answer. He commented that personally he did not think it would be acceptable to use town water.

Ms. Koulheras noted that one of the advantages listed for Alternative D was an improved fish pathway. She asked if that improvement entailed separating the river from the bogs in order to separate the pesticide and fertilizer draining into the river that impacted the fish. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was one of the benefits. He explained that the other benefit was a better defined channel for the fish. He stated that currently there was a portion of the channel that was very confusing. Ms. Koulheras asked if there were the potential for change in the temperature and dissolved oxygen with the lined channel. She noted that there would not be the natural influences that could regulate the temperature. She stated that should be included in the equation. Mr. Szymoniak replied that temperature had been considered.

Mr. Braun asked in regard to Alternative D, if the channels would be lined. Mr. Szymoniak replied that Alternative B was constant through Alternatives "C" and "D". He explained that the Lower Baptiste Bog would need to be a lined channel. The intent was to control where the EDB was upwelling in order to use the dilution and the volatilization as the basis to provide clean water. Mr. Braun asked how Alternative D isolated the EDB contaminated surface water. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the bogs would be separated by berms. He stated that when the bogs were flooded the upwelling could be controlled in order to achieve non-detect in the river. That water could then be used to flood the bogs. Mr. Braun asked how confident they were that none of that water would be surfacing into the bogs. Mr. Szymoniak replied a berm would be built preventing water from exiting the perimeter. He stated that none of the water from the river could enter into that dike. Mr. Braun asked if it was correct to say that there would be another channel inside the berm to direct the flow from the bog. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct.

Ms. MacRae commented that this was a summit of stakeholders, and yet it was not fair that the residents were never aware of this meeting. She noted that the newspapers were also unaware of these meetings. Ms. MacRae commented that public input was needed and this information should be presented in a public forum. She remarked that the people representing the town needed to hear the voices of the communities. She reiterated that the residents were stakeholders. Ms. MacRae stated that it was very unfortunate that the community was unaware of these meetings.

Mr. Spear noted that the placement of the berms could vary. He stated that the berms could be spaced widely apart with the intent of creating a "little" habitat on each side of the river. Mr. Spear stated that it may be necessary to provide some way for the water that naturally upwells within those bogs to "get out".

A member of the audience commented that isolating the river from the system was not an experimental option. He stated that currently there were examples of that throughout the state of Massachusetts. Ms. Koulheras noted that in this instance it would be on a much larger scale and typically the bypasses would not be lined.

Mr. Field asked if only Alternative B included lining a portion of the channel. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. Only a small section of the river that was upwelling would be lined. Ms. Kiley noted that the portion of the contaminated groundwater downgradient of EW-1 would continue to upwell wherever it was currently upwelling. She stated that if the river was not lined elsewhere, the contamination could get into the river. Mr. Szymoniak stated that there was too small a volume and the concentrations were so low that it would probably be non-detectable.

Mr. Field suggested that it would be helpful to clarify the process and public involvement. He added that the next step would be to discuss the pros and cons of each alternative.

Ms. Valiela noted that there was a tremendous amount of information that was being provided at the meeting. She hoped that by the end of the meeting, the attendees would have opinions about each of the alternatives. She noted that the Town of Falmouth needed to discuss the alternatives with the Conservation Commission and the Bog Committee. She stated that the Conservation Commission would meet on Wednesday, September 16, 1998 to discuss the alternatives, the transfer of water from Round Pond, and the purchase of water from the Town. She mentioned that the transfer and purchase of water were two key concerns of the Town of Falmouth. She went on to say that a commitment would not be made at that time. She then suggested that the cranberry meeting scheduled for next Wednesday be postponed until after the Conservation Commission meeting.

Agenda Item 8. Alternative E – EW-1 and Phased Approach:

Ms. Balkus explained that the rationale behind the phased approach for Alternative E was an attempt to ensure that the stakeholders each got something out of the alternative.

Ms. Balkus then referred to E-1 and E-2, the top two Upper Baptiste Bogs. She reminded the attendees of the surface water data that indicated non-detect. She stated that the non-detect data meant that there was not a need for additional action, except for the continuation of the monitoring of the surface water. She reported that there were detections at the outlet of the E-3 bogs where the Broad River ran up against the bog. She noted that it was proposed to install a berm there to separate the bog from Broad River. She also stated that two flumes would need to be installed so that water could be transferred into and out of that bog, because the current interface would be cut off. She reported that one advantage would be that the bog would be separated from the river and would provide new inlets and outlets.

Ms. Balkus then referred to E-4, the Lower Baptiste Bog and reviewed the four options. She stated that the upper two bogs were non-detect and predicted that the crop would be marketable by the fall of 1999. She mentioned that the E-3 bog would not see a marketable crop until the year 2000, because of the berm that would be installed.

Ms. Balkus then referred back to Option #1 for the Lower Baptiste Bog--the creation of a 6 acre pond. She reported that approximately six-acres of the bog would be lost. At this point in the meeting, she reviewed the advantages and disadvantages for Option #1.

Ms. Valiela commented that the cranberry grower would be compensated this year and next for the loss of the six acres. She then asked if there would be a compensation issue following the next two years. Ms. Balkus replied that the compensation would have to be addressed and could not be fully determined at this point.

Ms. Valiela then referred to the earlier discussion on negative easement and asked if the land would be accessed through that type of arrangement. Ms. Balkus replied that it would be determined whether a negative easement, a long-term lease, or buy out would be most appropriate.

Ms. Balkus then referred to Option #2, a 3-acre pond. She explained that the goal was to decrease the concentrations from the inlet of the Lower Baptiste bog to the outlet from 0.1 ppb to 0.01 ppb. She then reviewed the advantages and disadvantages for Option #2. She stated that the degradation of EDB was the same as in option #1, but that Option #2 covered a smaller area and also attempted to provide for the fisheries, the wetlands, and the cranberry growers.

Mr. Spear asked if Option #2 would be less effective, because it was a smaller area and not as much EDB would be treated. Mr. Szymoniak replied that would be the theory. Mr. Spear asked whether option #2 could be modified into option #1. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it could.

Ms. Balkus reviewed option #3. The EW-1 pumping rate would be reduced from 600 gpm to 400 gpm to accommodate the shallow well points. She pointed out that the effectiveness of EW-1 would not be decreased, but that the remaining 400 gpm would be treated when coming out of the shallow well points. She added that there would be less of a loss of cranberry bog than the other options. However it would have to be determined whether or not an alternative water source would be needed to produce a marketable crop, in the event that the extraction well points were not able to reach a non-detect level.

Ms. Valiela asked if the shallow well points would be capturing the EDB that was ahead of the EW-1. She also asked whether the shallow well points were relatively deep. Mr. Szymoniak replied that there was a shallow portion that was affecting the bog, and there was a deeper portion as well. Ms. Valiela clarified that this proposal did not contemplate getting the slug. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the volume there was small.

Ms. Valiela then asked if cranberry operations could continue on, while the shallow well points were pumping year round. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he thought that was possible, but Mr. Handy would have to answer that question. Ms. Valiela asked if the six acres that would be lost was located near the installation of the shallow well points. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the loss would be more like three acres. He also stated that the problem was that an alternative water source would have to be provided, and there may still be EDB remaining. Ms. Valiela stated that she was trying to determine what would be best for the Town.

Ms. Valiela stated that if the bog were flooded, then it would be out of production, but if well points were installed, there would be a question about whether the bog went out of production or not. Mr. Szymoniak reminded Ms. Valiela that Alternative #1 might leave some EDB in the river. Mr. Handy replied that there needed to be an active treatment. Mr. Szymoniak asked Mr. Handy if he could work around the well points if non-detect could be achieved. Mr. Handy replied that it would be difficult.

Ms. Valiela stated that the advantage to Alternative #3 would be that the bog would not be destroyed. Mr. Handy agreed.

Ms. Muramoto asked, in reference to the alternative water source, whether treated water from EW-1 would be sufficient in Option #3. Mr. Szymoniak replied that EW-1 would be sufficient if the well points were successful and the river system was non-detect. He mentioned that it was not likely to reach non-detect with the amount that was being pumped.

Mr. Field asked about the cost. Ms. Balkus replied that she was not sure whether every piece had been costed out.

Ms. Balkus then referred to the Augusta Bog. She reported that the surface water detections had been non-detect, and the bogs were already separated from the river. She stated that an appropriate alternative source to be able to flood those bogs had to be determined. She reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of Alternative E for the Augusta Bog.

Ms. Selman stated that someone had mentioned that they did not understand what her "hollering and screaming was about a few drops of water." She stated that if someone had done some hollering and screaming twenty-two years ago, then the situation would be different today.

Ms. Kiley asked whether a well for Mr. Augusta's bog was being considered as a potential water source for flooding. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was not being considered because of the contamination in the lower portion. He mentioned the idea of installing a well to be used to extract water to flood the bogs had an adverse public reaction. He went on to say that a well could be installed and could clean up that portion of the plume because of the small volume. Ms. Kiley clarified that she was not recommending a well be installed where there was pollution. She said that there had been discussion about a well being installed on the other side of the reservoir. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the discussion had been about installing a well further east, where the Adams and LaSalle Bogs were located. Ms. Kiley asked whether the well for the Adams Bog could be used for the Augusta Bog. Mr. Szymoniak replied that had not been considered.

Mr. McDermott asked what the disadvantages were of cleaning up the UST spill. Ms. Balkus replied that cleaning up the spill was listed as a disadvantage because the pipeline would lie across someone’s property, where there is also an underground storage tank spill that would have to be cleaned up. The advantage would be that the underground storage tank spill would be cleaned up, but the pipeline would have to installed. Mr. McDermott asked about boundary dispute. Ms. Balkus replied a couple of property owners were in dispute about boundaries, and that the land would be surveyed to clear up any questions about where the pipeline would be installed.

Ms. Selman asked whether a carbon filter could be installed for each bog, whether contaminated or not. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was a possibility however, the amount of iron that would be pumped through the carbon filter would cause maintenance problems. Ms. Selman asked whether the bog would be flooded in five days rather than two days. Mr. Szymoniak replied the growers would like to have it done in a three day period, because the temperature affects the vine and there was risk of damage if flooded too slowly.

Ms. MacRae stated that her property line extended over the ditch where the pipeline had been proposed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that property access would be discussed during public meetings.

Ms. Balkus then referred to the Adams Bog. She reminded the attendees that the surface water data had indicated that the top portion of the bog was non-detect, however where the river entered the bog, low levels of contamination were detected. She explained that the proposal was to install a berm to separate the bog from the river in the interior portion of the bog. She added that an alternative water source would also have to be added for flooding activities. Ms. Selman asked if Ms. Balkus was again referring to Round Pond. Ms. Balkus replied that Round Pond was one of the alternatives. Ms. Selman commented that Round Pond had been mentioned five times for five different bogs. She noted that Round Pond was barely able to harbor all of the wildlife already "hiding out" there. Ms. Balkus stated that she appreciated Ms. Selman's feedback.

Ms. Balkus went on to say that flumes would also have to be added to ensure the inflows and outflows of the bogs could trace the water in and out. She then mentioned that slide #51 was incorrect and should state that the cranberries would not be marketable until the year 2000, because the berm would first have to be installed. She added that the LaSalle Bog would also have to be bermed from the river.

Ms. MacRae noted that the LaSalle Bog recently went into operation. She pointed out that the Conservation Commission explained that the area may contain EDB, however the growers decided go ahead with the bog and accept responsibility. She stated that the LaSalle Bog was now part of the plan, and she did not understand why taxpayer’s money should be used to protect the bogs of owners who were aware of the contamination before going into operation. Ms. Balkus replied that Ms. MacRae had a good point and that it would be looked into.

Ms. Sanderson stated that she was curious why this was the first time that "submit notice of intent" was listed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that most of the alternatives included notice of intent, but that it was listed now because it was the first alternative that was on the boarder of vegetative wetland. Ms. Balkus stated that was also true of the E-3 Baptiste Bog, where it was proposed to cut off at Broad River. Mr. Szymoniak pointed out that Mr. Handy already had a conservation plan for the Baptiste Bog.

Mr. Brodski asked what kind of permission would be needed to pump water from Round Pond if an alternative water source were needed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that there were actually two things that might be required. He stated that there was a surface water permit that may be required from the State, because more than a hundred thousand gallons of water per day may be withdrawn. Also, a notice of intent may be required. Mr. Brodski asked if any information had been gathered about the pond. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the only information that was gathered was sampling, which determined that EDB was not present. He added that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were also sampled, as well as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and depth measurements. He stated that a survey of the ditch that runs into the Pond was also done. Mr. Brodski commented that the pond also connected to Jenkins Pond and clarified that the ditch to which Mr. Szymoniak referred was the one that ran into the Thompson Bog. He stated that water upwelled somewhere between the Thompson Bog and Round Pond. Mr. Szymoniak stated that there was a wetland between the Thompson Bog and Round Pond, and at one time there was a channel where there is an abandoned Cranberry Bog where water could flow from the Thompson Bog back to Round Pond. He stated that there was a small pipe there that controlled that flow, but that he was certain that there was groundwater that upwelled into that Bog. He also said that drive point sampling from the Thompson Bog did not detect EDB.

Mr. Spear commented that dikes or berms that were built on land of agricultural use did not require local, state, or federal permits. He then suggested talking informally to those agencies. He commented that the dikes currently there would not require a permit, if they were on vined areas. He also said that it would be another story, if they crossed into a natural wetland.

Ms. Koulheras commented that all of the alternatives discussed, other than the No Action Alternative, would involve any number of state and federal permits before going forward with these projects. She said that there might be a need for a wetlands permit, Water Management Act permits from the State, 401 Water Quality Certification, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) involvement, 404 Army Corps, and CZM Consistency Review. She went on to say the need for these permits was dependent upon how these projects were looked at, in terms of CERCLA. This has not been clarified to date, and a number of permits would be needed before work could go forward. She stated that the issue of what portions, if any, of these various alternatives might come under the State exemption for work in a land and agriculture area was still possibly up for interpretation. She then asked how much of this work was being done for the land and agriculture. She commented that what was being expressed today was not a project that has commenced, because the cranberry growers were planning to do this project. These projects were being proposed because of a pollution source outside of the cranberries.

Ms. Balkus agreed that part of what should be included in the discussion this afternoon was the possibility of an arrangement that would allow the Towns and the growers to work cooperatively with the Air Force and implement some of the smaller actions in the smaller areas. For example, there are benefits of berming in LaSalle Bog from an agricultural point of view. She stated that she would like to establish a dialogue on the possibility of implementing that kind of cooperative arrangement.

Mr. McDermott stated that he was confused. He noted that earlier it was said that consensus would hopefully be reached by early this week, with construction to start in November to be completed by March. He stated that there was a serious question as to what was going on here. He remarked that this was going to take a long time. Ms. Balkus replied that it could potentially take a long time, but if the right players were in the right place at the right time, and there were mutual benefits to an alternative, then it is possible. She added that she had explained some of the other ongoing activities, such as the studies that were underway and the legislative compensation that were factors that also had to be taken into consideration. She stated that the timeframe that was mentioned was a goal to shoot for, but it was not the only alternative.

Ms. Kiley noted that with all of these different alternatives, there were a number of permitting constraints. She said that Ms. Balkus alluded to these constraints, depending on how this process would be moved forward. She then asked under what authority this work was being done. She also asked if there would be a resolution to that shortly. Ms. Balkus replied that she hoped so, but that she did not know the answer. She stated that by talking about the alternatives, it could be determined which ones may or may not require permitting.

Ms. Balkus reported that the West Thompson Bog had been non-detect in the surface water and was already separated from the river. She added that there were at least four different water sources that could be tapped into--the Falmouth water main, sites further up river, Round Pond, or EW-1 treated water. She stated that one advantage would be that the bog would be allowed to go back into production by 1999. She stated that an appropriate water source would have to be determined.

Ms. Balkus then referred to the options for Alternative E for the East Thompson Bog. She stated that Option #1 would include the realignment of the existing river channel and the installation of a berm on the inside of the river channel to separate the bog from the river. She stated that the river would then be able to flow freely, because currently there was a weir at the bottom of the East Thompson Bog that controlled the flow north of it, and the realignment would allow for the weir to be taken out. She stated that a clean water source would also have to be provided for the bog operations in that area.

Ms. Balkus reviewed Option #2, which included leaving the river channel in place and installing a berm on the east side. Therefore, the smaller portion on the east side of the bog would be used for cranberry production, and the western side of the bog could be used as a wetland area. She clarified that there would be some loss of cranberry production, but there would not be an impact on the river. She stated that approximately one acre would be left for production, and two acres that would potentially be lost.

Mr. Field asked what was the cost of this alternative. Ms. Balkus replied that estimates were based on the installation of high points in an existing water body. She stated that the alternative water source for the Augusta, Adams, and LaSalle Bogs would cost approximately one hundred thousand dollars. She reported that the berm on the Adams Bog was approximately fifteen thousand dollars, and the berm on the LaSalle Bog would cost about the same. She stated that the costs were based on a cooperative effort with the Town and the growers.

Chaston Bog:

Ms. Balkus reported that the Chaston Bog was already separated from the river, but it was a leaking bog. Therefore the proposal was to provide an alternative water source to allow it to hold water when flooded.

Ms. Koulheras asked what the concern was if the bog was already separated from the river. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the concern was to provide water for harvest and flooding.

Ms. Kiley asked if there were any neighbor access issues. Ms. Balkus reported that during a site visit, a gentleman stated that his property had been disrupted during one of the other activities, and he pulled out a shotgun to ensure no one would access his property. She stated that any work would have to be done while working with the property owner to ensure that everything was understood.

Reservoir Bog:

Ms. Balkus stated that the goal was to control the concentrations upriver, so that by the time it reached Pond 14, the concentrations should be very low. She stated that the last bit of controls would be installed in Pond 14 to ensure that non-detect is reached. She noted that Pond 14 was an old abandoned cranberry bog. She stated that it was believed that there was a deep channel that ran through the center of the pond, and that the surface water was short-circuiting through the pond. The first step would be to run a tracer test to determine the actual detention time. The test results could determine which option would be appropriate.

Ms. Balkus reviewed the three options for the Reservoir Bog. She noted that Option #1 would include the installation of a floating baffle system that would force the surface water to navigate its way through the pond, and therefore increase the detention time of the water in the pond and thereby degrade part of the EDB. She explained that Option #2 proposed the installation of a new weir at the outfall to raise the water elevation in order to decrease the concentrations. She reported that Option #3 suggested that plant structures could be installed, which would serve the same purpose as the floating baffle system.

Mr. Montague expressed concern about disconnecting the connection between Flax Pond and Pond 14. He stated that there were times when the water needed to be channeled between Flax Pond and Pond 14 to allow the fish to get to Flax Pond. He said that issue should be explored. He commented that the connection was currently blocked off with sandbags to address the concerns about EDB travelling that way. He stated that the water would be needed at some point, and he would like to have that option, or have water from another source. Ms. Balkus replied that there was concern about getting the fish into Flax Pond and to Pond 14. She noted that the flume would be increased coming out of Flax Pond, so that the Herring population would be encouraged to use Flax Pond.

Ms. Muramoto expressed concern about the floating baffles in Pond 14. She asked how deep and complex the structure would be, and what the impacts would be on the fish. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the floating baffles would be hung by wire rope and anchored to the shore. He stated that the baffles would be full depth down to the bottom. He explained that they were anchored on the bottom and would float on the water surface. He stated that the problem with the baffles were that they were not made for man-made natural ponds and were really constructed for use in lagoons.

Ms. Balkus replied that the Middle and Lower Bogs were tied into what had already been discussed. She stated that whatever action was taken on Pond 14 would directly impact the Reservoir, Middle, and Lower Bogs. She stated that the Flax Pond bogs were currently cranberry producing and were being marketed.

Mr. Field asked what the cost was on the Reservoir Bog. Ms. Balkus replied that there was not a detailed cost available for the floating baffles.

Agenda Item 9. Summary of the Phased Approach:

Ms. Balkus explained that Phase I would consist of berming off the northern piece of the Baptiste Bog. She added that the alternative water source would be provided to the bogs that were already separated. She noted that a significant amount of bogs could be brought back into production quickly. She reported that Phase II would include the berm structure along the Adams and LaSalle Bogs and the inclusion of an alternative water source for the middle area. She also stated that one of the options for Pond 14 would be implemented to reduce concentrations. Ms. Balkus then referred to Phase III, which would address the East Thompson Bog. Phase IV referred back to the Lower Baptiste holding pond. She noted that since everything was contingent on what was done at the Lower Baptiste Bog, that perhaps that should be done first. She explained that it was dependent on what goal was trying to be met. She stated that she would like comments and feedback from the attendees on this matter.

Ms. Harper asked if the volume of flow that would be needed as an alternative source, whether it be from Round Pond or the Town water supply, had been calculated. Ms. Balkus replied that approximately 600 gpm had been estimated. She also mentioned that it took two to three days to be able to fill the bogs.

Mr. Field asked when the water would be needed. Ms. Balkus replied that all of the bogs needed to be flooded in the winter to prevent the vines from freezing. She stated that if the bog used wet harvesting, then there would be an additional need for flooding.

Ms. MacRae asked if the bogs would be flooded to prevent budding. Ms. Balkus replied that yes, the bogs would be flooded next year to prevent the buds. Mr. Szymoniak replied that with an alternative water source it was possible that the bogs could be back in production next year. He stated that data was available that suggested non-detect, with the exception of when water was provided for flooding. Mr. Field asked if there was enough water supply for the irrigation needs but not for the winter protection and wet harvest flooding. Ms. Balkus replied that was correct.

Ms. Selman commented that she heard that fifteen hundred gpm were needed, and that four to six hundred did not seem sensible. Mr. Szymoniak replied that fifteen hundred was used in the model, but it was thought that it could be done with less. Ms. Selman then asked how many gallons would be used from Round Pond. Mr. Szymoniak replied that six hundred gpm was enough to feed the bogs. Ms. Selman asked how many bogs the water taken from Round Pond would feed. Mr. Szymoniak replied that one bog would be done at a time, and the total would be approximately twelve acres.

Mr. Field asked if six hundred gpm would supply all of the bogs with water for both winter protection and harvest. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the bogs could not all be done at the same time, because six hundred gpm would not do all of the bogs at once. He stated that it would have to be phased in off of the pipeline. He noted that the assumption was that the bogs did not leak.

Ms. Selman commented that it had taken three years to get the water level back up at Round Pond. She expressed concern about the wildlife. Mr. Szymoniak replied that there was a withdrawal going out to Jenkins Pond, which could be used for the bog instead of going into Jenkins Pond. Ms. Shea asked Mr. Szymoniak if he was referring to the stream that ran under the road. Mr. Szymoniak replied that he was and pointed out that he had not yet looked at it. Ms. Shea commented that that stream was dry for about ten years and had only opened up since last fall. She stated that it was only because of the rainfall that it started to flow again.

Mr. Bicki commented that in terms of the water use, the actual withdrawals could be considerably less, because there could be some sharing of harvest water, for example, from the Augusta Bog to the West Thompson piece. He stated that there was a weir that connected those two pieces. He commented that a weir between the Chaston Bog or the LaSalle Bog would be a small price to pay to be able to transfer some of the harvest water or floodwater from one piece to the other. Mr. Bicki stated that the growers could coordinate the sharing of that water.

Mr. Koehler asked how much the pipeline from the Augusta Bog to Turner Road would cost. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the cost would be approximately twenty dollars per linear foot. He added that the most pipeline that would be used was three thousand feet. Mr. Koehler commented that sounded inexpensive. He then asked how long it took to cover the cranberry plants in the winter. A cranberry grower replied that it depended greatly on the timing of the cold front.

Ms. Muramoto asked in regard to withdrawing water form another pond and feeding a new source, if creating a storage area for treated EW-1 water to be used as an alternative water source had been considered. Ms. Balkus noted that was good idea. She said that it had been considered and would have to be discussed with the landowner.

Ms. Kiley stated that there had been discussion about piping down treated water, and discussion about piping down water upgradient of the treatment. She then asked if, for example, what was in the Coonamessett River would be piped down from north of Station 6, so clean water would be piped down for flooding. Ms. Balkus stated that was still being considered. Mr. Szymoniak mentioned that there was concern about the impact to the fish.

Ms. Kiley commented that the discussion was about flooding for the winter, which typically would be taking place in December, and once the bogs were flooded, they would be flooded through March or so. Mr. LaFleur clarified that the bogs would be flooded, depending on the oxygen level in the water. Mr. Szymoniak suggested to keep in mind that the water table was high this year.

Ms. Valiela commented that moving water from any pond to this area was going to have significant barriers. She said that there would be a public acceptance barrier, there was a greater than 100 gpm permitting issue, and there might be a strong wetlands issue. She remarked that it would be much more promising to consider using the treated water from EW-1. She noted that the production there was as high as 800 gpm. She said that there was discussion about one possibility being the shallow well points. She then commented that there had not yet been discussion about whether there was treated water coming from any other plants on base. She said that in terms of treated water, that was another possible candidate. She went on to say that 600 gpm pulled out of either Round Pond or Coonamessett Pond would not match the need. She stated that other answers needed to be developed that had the entire solution and did not have all the environmental and neighborhood concerns with taking the water out of a pond.

Ms. MacRae stated that it was her understanding that EW-1 captured eighty percent. She then said that the letter that Ocean Spray wrote stated that they would not take any cranberries until the river was one hundred percent free of EDB. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the concern was what to do with the main portion that had not been captured. Ms. MacRae commented that the treated water would still only be eighty percent clean. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the treatment plant removed one hundred percent of the EDB.

Mr. Jasinski noted that fifty percent of the bogs of concern were in the lower half, in the second half of the phased approach. He then asked why bringing those fifty percent of bogs back into operation as quickly as possible was not the focus of this approach. Then the other bogs, the Adams, LaSalle and East Thompson Bogs could be addressed as the process moved ahead. Ms Balkus replied that it was interconnected right now and that the contamination had to be addressed upstream. Mr. Jasinski asked what was the most important thing to do to fix those fifty percent of bogs. Ms. Balkus replied that other alternatives could also be used. She explained that part of an alternative could be used, and the bogs could be bermed off. She stated that she presented a broad cross-section in hopes of some feedback. Mr. Szymoniak stated that it had already been demonstrated that non-detect could be reached, if the contamination were cut off upstream. He explained that the goal was to reduce the concentration upstream by either flooding the bogs or controlling the upwelling. He stated that the first thing that had to be done at Pond 14 was to complete the tracer that Ms. Balkus had mentioned.

Ms. Miles agreed that there was a need to reduce concentration upstream, and therefore it would seem that the first step would be to create the Lower Baptiste holding pond to reduce those concentrations upstream, before doing the berming of the small bogs. She stated that those thirty acres of the lower bogs could then be brought much more quickly, and more focus could be put on the smaller bogs. Mr. Szymoniak agreed that it might be more beneficial to do the Baptiste Bog first.

Mr. Szymoniak stated that the concentrations coming out of Pond 14 were barely detectable. He stated that an understanding of what was taking place upstream was necessary, as was an understanding of what was happening at Pond 14.

Ms. Selman asked if each bog could be "self sufficient", by using a small well with a carbon filter to recycle the water used for flooding. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the bogs were currently designed that way. He noted that the Augusta Bog has a return reservoir, which was used for irrigation. Ms. Selman asked why then was this was not done. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the bogs were interconnected because they relied on the river, and the gradients were now very flat in the upper bogs. H