Ogunquit Watershed Committee selects officers, sets 2027 priorities

[0:00] Chair: It's pretty, I really went over the video, so it's pretty accurate. You tell me when Ben. Hello. Okay, we're live. Good morning, it's Thursday, October 15th, 2026. This is the meeting of the Agunquit River Watershed Committee. And just so you know, I have to wear sunglasses because I left my sunglasses, my other glasses at home. So I'm not trying to, you know, be a movie research, but anyway, so I'm going to have to use them to read. Our mission is to restore the health of the Agunquit River for its aquatic ecosystems, for the safe recreation of residents and tourists, and for the local economy. As residents within the watershed, we collaborate to implement the actions outlined in the 2025 Agunquit River Watershed-Based Plan to meet and maintain the water quality standards established by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Protection. So our first agenda item is election of officers. We're all sworn in, and so are there any nomination? I nominate Jane Green as president, chair. I will second. Chair, oh chair, not president, chair. Okay, seconded. All those in favor, all those in favor, aye. And the vice chair, I nominate Suzanne. [Speaker C (unidentified): Suzanne Williams.] Suzanne Williams, I second. All those in favor, I accept, thank you. And secretary, not the easiest job, but is anybody be willing? [1:52] Speaker D (unidentified): I'll take a stab. [1:53] Chair: Oh yes, yeah, okay, I nominate Pam Sawyer as secretary. Second, all those in favor. [2:02] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, you have to do a roll call because there's so much we will. Okay, roll call, I'm sorry, so let's [2:09] Chair: from the, from the first, from the fair. Okay, so roll call for the, for the nomination of chair. Suzanne, how do you vote? Yes. Avery? Yes. Pam? Yes. And I'm also a yes. Vice chair for Suzanne Williams. Suzanne, how do you vote? Yes. Yes. Yes. I also am a yes. Pam Sawyer for secretary how do you vote suzanne yes avery yes pam yes and i also yes so it looks like we 've done that great i sent out the minutes and i'm wondering if are there any changes or edits or anything that you noticed that was inaccurate i know they were longs okay i'll just [3:06] Suzanne Williams: I'm okay with the minutes. I wanted to make a note that Chris Nobile is still on our documents as representative of the Shellfish Commission, so if we just want to remove him from there, he was on the minutes, and I don't know if that's just [Speaker D (unidentified): whatever] he's still on the [3:30] Chair: template, so Chris Murphy will have to change that, and I'll ask her to do that. So yes, other than that, are there any changes, deletions, edits, additions? Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? [3:49] Suzanne Williams: I was there, so I can make that motion. [3:54] Speaker C (unidentified): With discussion that our point of order, we need to go back to the to the officers because and Eileen just brought up the fact that Suzanne is not a resident of a Bunkwood. Can she be vice chair? Yes, she can't be chair, but she can be vice chair. It is, yes, okay. [4:21] Chair: Thank you. Is that, are we clear on that, everybody clear? Yeah, okay. What's the what's [4:25] Suzanne Williams: the definition is that full-time resident, is that what's the, what's the definition we're going off of? The chair has to be a full-time resident, full-time resident, okay, gotcha, that's for the chair, all of the ordinance, that's for the chair, gotcha, okay. Do we have a motion to approve [4:47] Chair: the minutes? Don't move, second. All those in favor, how do you vote? Suzanne? Yes. Avery? Yes. Pam? Yes. And I too am a yes. The minutes are approved. Okay, so this is the main, the main part of our meeting today is going over the draft of the work plan that the select board asked us to give feedback on, and it will, part of that is deciding priorities for 2027. I, Suzanne and I worked on aligning the comp plan strategies that they gave us with the watershed-based plan and where those action items were and then we made some, we made some comments on that. I did give that to Ben. Do we want to show that right now, that chart? Does that sound good? We can come in. Yeah, so Ben, if you want to show that chart, [6:06] Suzanne Williams: that'd be awesome. Okay, if he doesn't have it, I could show my screen. He has it. No, he has multiple [6:11] Speaker D (unidentified): copies. Oh, this is, yeah, you [6:30] Speaker C (unidentified): may want to explain to this chart to people because they don't have the other piece with it. You don't have what piece, people online, if anybody watching me, it's not as though ever, please, that's right, okay, all right, so there it is and [6:54] Chair: we looked at, I'm here right now for my yes, what was given us in the workbook, and we kind of went one by one to figure out whether it was aligned to our action items, which is the basis of our work. So I'm just going to take it one by one. And then if we have questions about that, if on the chart, if it's purple, it's that we either collaborate or we're not sure. It's like this, the red is really, there was no connection to the action plan. And blue is it's in our wheelhouse. So the first one was agriculture and forestry, and it's analyzed and make recommendations for protecting more land in shoreland zones, and there is a spot in the action plan that talks a little bit about that. It's 5A and 5C. 5A is Collaborate with Partners to Identify Key Parcels for Land Purchase and or Conservation Easements for Stream Protection of Vegetative Repairing Buffers. And the how is to schedule a meeting with local land trusts. And so, you know, we feel that it's really better suited to Conservation Commission's mission, but we would certainly be happy to collaborate as conservation of land is one of their mission statements. I think we're happy to collaborate with that, and certainly protecting land or protecting the streams from land development is important to our mission. Does anybody have any questions about that, any thoughts about mass transfer, I think, yeah. [8:53] Speaker C (unidentified): That makes sense to me, yeah. I mean, I think that right now we're dealing with some of those issues. It's 5a and 5e, 5a and 5e, okay, got them. 5a is consider increasing the water body setback [9:09] Chair: requirements in shoreland zones from 75 feet 50 feet to 100 feet in order to protect water quality and improve riparian habitats, and that would be planning board more than, yeah, and that's really planning board. We're not really listed in the responsible parties for that in the action items. It is the town, but again, I think I'm happy to collaborate or have discussions. I just don't think it's a main one of our main missions. Do you have thoughts on that, Suzanne? No, I [9:45] Suzanne Williams: go ahead, Pam. No, I'm sorry, Suzanne, you started, I apologize. No,, I agree with that. I think we need to keep in mind that much of the work we do in these action items is to kind of oversee and make sure that things are moving along in the right direction. Some of it we're taking direct activity, and some we're just making sure it's happening, and the responsible parties on these are definitely not, you know, not directly, it's not directly on us. So, you know, as long as it's happening, I think, you know, it would be nice to have concom take a look at that and see if it suits them in terms of their work load and [10:35] Speaker C (unidentified): to follow up on that, I mean, And I know we do have some streams like that do fall out into the Leavitt stream, which empties into the estuary, which is, you know, under our purview. So I think working with them possibly on something like that might be where we can collaborate. [10:53] Chair: I agree with you. Okay. And I think I agree with Pam, and I also agree with Suzanne, that if we keep some of these things, we just have to keep our eye on and make sure that they're being, but it doesn't have to be one of the main thrusts of our of our committee. But I think keeping an eye on it is good. Does that does that sound right to everybody? Okay, so marine resources too, and that is participate and continue to work with the Agunka River watershed restoration project to develop plans and interventions to protect coastal water quality report recommendations select board there 's no working a gunkwood river watershed restoration project at the moment i mean so i think that was written this was written maybe the comp plan when the end of the 319 grant was going on i'm not an expert but i as far as i know there's no group out there they're a restoration project anymore working we are we've sort of taken on that [12:01] Speaker C (unidentified): responsibility now. Is SPDC taking up any of that? I know it was FBA Environmental that was doing all that. Yeah, I don't know what their role is now with the town. They're in, they're in an [12:17] Chair: advisory role because we re-enrolled in the governor's program for innovation and policy see for the future, so we are we're -enrolled, so Southern Maine Planning and Development Commission can help us with grants and so forth. I don't think they have as large a role because we that would require additional funding. That's my understanding from Mandy, but they are helping us obviously with this grant that we're helping with. It's also a new grant they're writing, so again, I mean, we, are the, we're the body now who's, you know, trying to improve the river. So I'm, I'm just confused about that one. Anyway, any other thoughts about that? Number two, before we move on. [13:12] Suzanne Williams: Yeah, I, can, I make one comment? Yeah. Just the fact that it's under marine resources, jumped out at me, you know, for instance, that could extend to the cove, of course, and protecting water quality in the cove. And so I was a little unsure about how that fit in directly with our watershed plan. So that I think we would need to clear up if we were going to assume that. Right. [13:44] Speaker C (unidentified): And the Desire River dumps into the cove and I don't know where the tributaries of the Desire River come from and streams, et cetera. [13:52] Chair: or so, you know. Great. I agree. I just, yeah, I agree. [13:59] Suzanne Williams: So, I think we might want to, on the comments, let them know that, you know, that this also seems to be, you know, a marine resources issue that, you know, isn't necessarily just covered in the Gunquit River watershed. [14:13] Chair: Shed, okay, thank you very much. Okay, and so we move on to number three. Number three is natural resources. Analyze the health of the beach system, shorelands, dunes, and estuary, which is vital to the town. Report the results of the analysis to the public and develop a plan to ensure the health of the beach system. You know, certainly we are, we are analyzing the health of the river in the estuary. I don't think we're responsible for, and the dunes are part of the estuary, I understand that, but we're not responsible for every, you know, every section. I think that's something that is Conservation Commission. That's my sense. I don't know. I actually, [15:10] Speaker C (unidentified): and you and I talked about this yesterday, Jane. There's some, I think we need some clarification from our liaison both for the Conservation Commission and for this committee because there is some overlap between the Conservation Commission and the Watershed Committee and some sustainability that all have in their action plans very similar statements. Maybe one or two words that are different, but they all talk about dunes, estuaries, streams, you know, whether it's analyzed, whether it's evaluate the health of the beaches, the health of the estuary, the health of the water, the health of the sea. And they're all, they're all together. So I think we need to come up with, I know, I don't think it directly is us. I do think right now the Conservation Commission, I've listened to their meeting, they don't seem to be doing that. So at this point in time, and I listened to their last meeting, yeah, where they went over this and it never came up, so that's why I think that we need to get some clarification. [16:32] Chair: I think you're absolutely right. And I, you know, I also, I feel like we as committees are not doing scientific analysis. No. So, you know, part of our job, because on this committee, [16:49] Speaker C (unidentified): this watershed is exact wording. [Chair: Right, exactly.] And sustainability has another one in this, similar wording. So we have to decide which committee is taking the lead on it. All three committees can work on it. But I mean, who's taking the lead on it? Right. That's my feeling. I don't know. [17:11] Suzanne Williams: Susanne, what do you think? Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. And I mean, yeah, I think the most important thing is to have one committee or commission responsible so that others can fall in line below them and work together. But if we if we have shared responsibility, then often that's when nothing gets done in terms of, you know, somebody taking the lead. I think we just need to figure out who's taking the lead and yeah I wouldn't want to see us having to divert our resources to you know to the beach system it's it's a it's a little beyond [17:54] Chair: what we're supposed to be doing so that really that we just need we need clarification I really appreciate the comments because I that's how I feel too it needs to be done so I you know I don't know the state of the conservation commission right now or what they I don't know but I let's just a very full committee now which is not yeah so maybe we'll just need clarification on that and we can move on right now I know maybe I would suggest maybe Jane [18:28] Speaker C (unidentified): if you would reach out to our liaison who and about that and then he can reach out to the conservation commission's liaison and I'm not sure if it's the same it's the same yeah [18:43] Chair: conservation is no is a Heathlet no he's no it's Bob White lies both conservation commission and us oh okay so Heath is a Marshall that's right okay so if [18:57] Speaker C (unidentified): you can reach out to him and say okay who's taking the lead on this and maybe you and Wendy can meet with him I don't I don't know whatever the liaisons feel is most [19:08] Chair: appropriate okay I wrote a note perfect all right so the big one is number six it's really our entire mission is that and Suzanne and I when we were working on this chart we Suzanne had a great idea about maybe taking that all see all those action items are under that one water resource is one and so if there's a way for us to separate out it's so broad that if we could take some of those action items and separate out that could be our priorities for 2027. I feel like it's a big, it's a big part of our mission. I also think if you go down on the on the chart to 15 and 16, those, are public education, disposal of pet waste, and also continue to work with the Agunkut Sewer District, and I would like to work closer with them. Next year we kind of opened the door to that and I'd like to continue to work with that so [20:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Suzanne, that suggested that could be part of that breakout, and again, that is the exact wording on ConComs, one of their things too. It's the exact wording. Yeah, they took everything. [20:35] Chair: They took basically everything under us is ConCom, right, from, it's, it's the same thing. Yeah, because we're not, we were not committee yet. So, I mean, I don't know whether we want to look in the action plan, the 7A to 7D, and talk about this at the moment, or whether we want to just go through the list, if that's more efficient. I just feel like the big thing is number six. [21:03] Speaker C (unidentified): I think we should go through the list first, and I think then in subsequent meetings we start going through piece by piece by piece all the different action items that go with that. Okay, that would be [21:13] Chair: my suggestion. Well, when and that one of the things that we have to do on a task today is pick two or three things that we're going to work on for 20. That's part of, I have to create a document [21:26] Speaker C (unidentified): from this meeting about that. So I think we're already working on one, and that would be the gabion baskets and working with that, and that's the estuary, but that we're doing now. That is, and [21:39] Chair: that will be finished next year, so right, and that was released, that and the septic survey were started in this year, right. So I'm, I'm trying to think of, yes, we kind of finished that up, but we have to think about maybe just two action items that we're going to do next year, but we [21:56] Speaker C (unidentified): haven't done the survey, we haven't sent it out, so that would be next year too. So right. I don't know. Right. No, you're right. And I mean, we initially started that. Yeah. [22:09] Chair: And we can talk about the status of that if you want to right now. I mean, the status of the survey is Avery. Do you want to talk about that a little bit? [22:19] Speaker D (unidentified): Yes. So where that's at right now is we were working on getting that on the agenda for one of the adequate select board meetings. Meetings, Wells, yeah, I'm sorry, the Wells like we're meetings, but the, our town's undergoing some leadership changes in three of our departments. We got the fire chief, the police chief, and the town manager are all transitioning out at the same time, and we're doing the same thing, right. So we're gonna, maybe think we might give the new town manager or a little bit of time to settle in and get everything together before we reach back out again. [23:01] Chair: What do you think? Well, we're thinking the same. I think just giving him a chance. We're not going to do this until the spring anyway. So after the first of the year, I thought maybe I'll touch base with you and I'll write an email similar to Mike Pardue, just getting him kind of – I think that gives us enough time. We have to create – once Wells decides to participate, we have to figure out the communication, how we're going to communicate the taking the survey. And then what are we going to do with the data? So those are two things that, you know, that we will need to kind of finish up on that. So that's the plan so far. Any thoughts, Suzanne? [23:45] Suzanne Williams: Not specifically on the septic survey, but yes, on reference number six, when you're ready. [23:52] Chair: Go ahead. Then let's start that. Go ahead. Okay. [23:54] Suzanne Williams: So, I did throw out the idea of breaking it into smaller categories, but that's really, I mean, this is, this is for the, select boards use. And I, so I think maybe we should ask them if they require that because we, you know, we have, we have our categories there. They're in this action item. You know, so I don't know that we should go to the trouble of breaking it out if they're content with it just all being ours and number six. And, of course, we'd be happy to take the responsibility for that. Yeah, I think that's... [24:36] Chair: So on the document, do you think on the document, then just put that one and then list those action items underneath? [24:42] Suzanne Williams: Yeah, I think so. So, you know, those are the direct ones, but then almost everything is an indirect connection to number six. And then I guess my other comment is on the number of initiatives that they want us to have, which was like three to five or something. We're going to need to overachieve, and I think we just need to keep that in mind. We have a 10-year plan, and we have hundreds of things to do, and some of them have to be done every year. So no matter what we give them as our priorities for 2027, I think we're going to need to be thinking bigger. And I think that's going to involve a separate meeting for us to sort of digest this action plan and determine, you know, what comes next and how we oversee the whole plan. So that's all I have on that. I agree. [25:41] Chair: Agreed. So we'll get, we'll go through the rest of the list, but are you thinking, and I'm going to read, I'm just restating this, that for the document that's due today, I have to, I have to write it up today. [25:52] Speaker C (unidentified): I think they changed the date on that. Oh, did they? I thought this did because I don't know. Oh, okay. Well, anyway, I don't think anybody, any other committee is doing it. I know that CONCOM is not putting it in today. They did not do that yet. [26:05] Chair: Okay. So maybe using number six as the main thing and not adding any more of these things for this particular document. I'm thinking that 's... [Suzanne Williams: I wouldn't mind.] Yeah. Go ahead. [26:26] Speaker C (unidentified): No, I was just going to say that when you're writing this up for the select board, you could say these are the areas that we are, we are going to be tackling first or initiating work plans for that. You know, I don't, we don't know how long it's going to take. We really don't know the outcome yet until we actually put this down. But this is what we're doing. This is how it ties back here. All I care about is tying back to the comp plan. That's exactly right. That's it. All it is. And if it's in the comp plan and we're trying to keep the estuary clean in the streams and wetlands, etc. You know, these are the action items that we're going to be looking over, actually, over the next five year, ten years. But you know, we are, you're going to prioritize these in the next six months. We'll have prioritized days. We'll have a plan on how we begin to implement these action plans. That's right. The stuff. So that, I think that's, they're just [27:21] Chair: I think that's what they're looking for. Yeah, I think the purpose really is to make, to keep our eye on the comp plan that I wrote in the email to you guys. I think the idea that we're all in, we can collaborate and be on the same road towards whatever the comp plan outlines. And I'm all for that. I am. And I also think I'm, they said in the in the, town work plan that they sent us, we're not, we're not, we don't have to achieve everything that we set out in 2027. But the idea, and I think you're right, Suzanne, that we do need to push and it, but it doesn't, they're not requiring us to complete any of these action items that we choose for 2027. We can certainly hope that we can, but I mean, I think that some of these, as Pan pointed out, are broad and will require [28:16] Suzanne Williams: More time, I would still be comfortable, I would still be comfortable saying 6, 8, 15, 16, and 17 for 2027. And I know we haven't gotten to all of them, but I would be comfortable, we're, we're, we're doing these things now. So it's 6, 8, 15, and 16, 15 was the 15, 16, and 17. And so these are all things that we're working on now, so 6, 8, 15, 16, 17. Okay, so 15 is the petway, 16 is the sewer district working with the sewer district, 17, hold on, we're doing this already, encourage landowners to protect water quality, no. We're doing outreach, we're, yeah, we're, we're storm drain stenciling, that's eight. I mean, we're, we're, we're already doing these, so I think we should, you know, we can be specific and let them know we're working on. [29:17] Chair: Those as well, the six, which is eight, I did connect with them, I asked the DPW gave us that they change the filters once a year, I think it's in the fall, but Eileen has that information, so I know where they're supposed to be overseeing that, they, that's number eight, assess that the current catch basins are, their functionality is good, but we just, you know, it'd be nice to figure out some kind of pre and post as we've discussed lots of times, if the catch basins are working to filter the water now that. They have the right. [29:58] Speaker C (unidentified): And we may get asked the question, are we going to put additional catch basins, because the original plan had two more catch basins, I believe, I may be wrong. [30:07] Chair: No, at least one. [30:09] Speaker C (unidentified): In the beach area, in that beach parking lot, can we just back up one thing on the pet waste, I know we're doing a lot with the pet waste ways and Suzanne, I know you're doing a lot with that, with educating the public about that, I listened to, which one did I listen to, the conservation commission meeting, and they were talking about how to go about ordnance, getting ordinance changes, and they were talking specifically, I believe, about trees, and don't quote me on that, I think that we need to look along. With the pet waste, we need to look at an ordinance that aligns both the beach and the marginal way that are the same about when animals are allowed on the beach, I mean no horses anyway, but dogs, what the definition is, voice command and or leash, and also, you know, define, so if we could maybe at one of our meetings we'll write up a, draft ordinance taking the ordinance that we have now, and you give that to Tyler, who would then give that to the planning board, who would then approve that or not. Approve that and then give it to the select board so we are at least on the same page. We're not looking, you know, I get, I know, I get people say, well, it's, I can go on the marginal away at this edge and I can go here and I can do this and I'm going to get fine this or that. It just needs to be consistent, I think, just consistency across the board when we're doing [31:58] Chair: everything. So I agree. Did he put something before the select board about that? I thought he [32:05] Speaker C (unidentified): did. He did, but I don't know if it ever was put forth in an ordinance form. And when Tyler spoke to the conservation commission, he specifically said that we need to put it in an ordinance. Oh, okay. He advised them to put it in ordinance form, I believe it was about the trees, and that once it was in ordinance forms that to give it to him and then he would wordsmith and say yes no this is right no this you need to have it this way or that way and then [32:38] Chair: he would take it to the planning board. So and I think, I think that is in the action items by the way. Yeah, it was, it is, I know, is to work on that. I can't remember which one it is, but I [32:55] Suzanne Williams: work with the town to have consistent. Yeah, that's on 15, ensure that signage reflects the same dates and fines and these are enforced. There we go. Yeah, there we go. And that and I think the [33:09] Speaker C (unidentified): definition of what does it mean by voice control. Yeah, I think I'm always concerned, I mean, when a over exuberant puppy goes running down the beach to see a little child, which is great, but the child gets scared and you know, scares then the puppy, so you know, I don't want anybody to [33:29] Chair: get her dog in or child. So well, and it's a tricky thing because that, I know there are some dogs, it's not mine, but are very good with voice command. I will say my dog is not, you know, and but my dog has struggles with other dogs, so I feel like that is a tricky, a tricky question, but I agree with you about, I think a lot of people have been asking or feels like over the years, let's get it consistent, let's get it, this has been going on for six years. Yeah, I think we need, and I know we mentioned it in the 319 grant meeting. I think you were there. I was there. I remember asking you. [34:09] Speaker C (unidentified): We did it when I was on conservation commission, and that's a long time ago. So this is something that I think we just need to do it. [34:17] Chair: Okay, that's a good thought. [34:19] Speaker C (unidentified): And that will then, Suzanne, then you build that into all the stuff and all the education. You're giving all that valuable information. You can say, okay, this is what the ordinance says right now, and it's for everything, and now [34:37] Chair: you've convinced me that we should add all these things in, and I will write it in a way that is all the blue and I think into the document. But I, let's, let's keep going here. I want to talk about seven, and seven is make water testing results at beaches, rivers, streams, and estuaries readily available to users in real time. I think I should say collaborate with DEP main healthy beaches to improve communication of water beach water quality. We talked about this a few meetings back, the meeting when Mandy was here and when Melanie was here, and we talked about the bio meme and how that was created. That was bought with a sense that it would give people an, you know, an immediate result on water testing. And then, but there was, but we also decided or taught, we felt that it was wise for the select board to have some sort of policy about that. So, yes, we can inform the public. I, you know, I don't, whether we use the bio meme or not, I mean, that's still up for discussion. [35:46] Speaker C (unidentified): And that's sustainability's big thing. It was, right. [35:48] Chair: Right. It's sustainability. I know it came from them at the time. And that's how they got bought. [35:52] Speaker C (unidentified): And I'm not even sure the strips that we have now are up to date, and we haven't bought strips in a long time because we've lost funding for that. [35:59] Chair: Right. Well, I think, yeah, I, there's some question about, the integrity of the strips would be available. I've heard that they would be available. I, my question is logistics. And I think we talked about this before is that I don't, I can't, I don't know how we're going to do the test real time on the beach. I just don't. I don't, someone explain that to me so that we can do it. I know I've said this a million times. I sound like I'm dodging it, but anyway, that being said, whether it's the biome or some other thing, there has to be a policy in place that comes from the select board. That's what happens if [36:40] Speaker C (unidentified): you know so that's why i put that and they're you know yes sure that 's already being done with main healthy beaches if there is an elevation and it's hazardous right the town [36:58] Chair: does post that well if they take a test if it's high they take another test the next day if it's still high they post it on your side and that's the thing never right and that's from main healthy beaches my thing is because this is about real results in real time i think it's tied it's tied to the biome but what is the what is the biome the biome was a water testing tool it came developed by yeah university of new hampshire john buchi who i don't know whether he's still there or not that when sustainability was had him come speak it's a rapid test so it shows instead of waiting a whole day or whatever it's more like half an hour don't quote me anybody if anybody's on i'm not i'm thinking i'm getting it right but it's a rapid test and it's a little more complicated it's complicated because you have to do the instead of having taking it to lab doing it you're doing the lab thing right there so there was some issue when people when they were trying to train the lifeguards on it and there were some and i wasn't around the time so i don't know but that it became logistically difficult not only where you do it but like the actual procedure of it i 'm just saying what mandy said that told me that [38:21] Speaker D (unidentified): so i don't know so there's really no way to like if even if you wanted to make a website or something for people to look at there's no way to get real time right information [38:33] Chair: And I thought initially like if it comes up you know if you're on the beach and it comes up and it's bad yeah I always I always appreciate that the main healthy beaches does two tasks although we've already discussed this in our last meeting that it because it's the same time maybe the tides are different, that, you know, that it can be a different result. And often it's high and then not high. So that confuses people. You know, again, I don't know, based on one test, it's high. Oh, the numbers are when the numbers don't match mean healthy beaches either. That was another issue, but Oh, it's high. Now what? And I can't get, you know, does a big sign go up then? Don't, don't come on the beach that I just don't think that the cautionary sign [39:19] Speaker C (unidentified): Goes up there is a, you know, a cautioner is, it is, I don't only remember one or two times in the last maybe four or five years there a sign went up that says don't swim at all. I don't remember, I don't think any time I've been here. I think when Pat Sennigan was the town manager we did have to put it up once because we got it and then the next time and we had to do it and then and Main Health, we just had to come back again. It's on their website, Avery. I mean, you can go and you can see everything that's on there. At the same time, which complicates it even more, we had this biome that we bought to do that. Again, where we were going to post the results was never actually. Exactly. It was solidified where those results were going. Right. And in conjunction with that, we had FBE, which is Environmentals, were at that time also testing on the main beach and the estuary. So you had other entities doing testing. [40:30] Chair: And FBE was going upstream. [40:33] Speaker C (unidentified): Right. And they went around. They did the Little Beach. [40:36] Speaker D (unidentified): Should be, yeah, I mean, they, so what I'm hearing then is that for the for B it is order or D, yeah, yep, there's just no way to implement that, right, how do we communicate, I mean, do you just leave that in there and hope maybe someday the technology [40:59] Speaker C (unidentified): is developed or because here's technology is there I just think it says work with [41:06] Chair: This is 4D, work with Maine Healthy Beaches program to develop improved public notification system for elevated bacteria advisories within the town. When there are advisories, use colored flags or physical signs to alert the public of potentially high bacterial levels. Coordinate with DPW for these efforts. I think the idea of the flags came up because people weren't reading the signs or the signs were covered with vegetation, isn't that right, Suzanne, the idea of a flag, it came up at the watershed when they creating the plan, yeah, well, you know, you could [41:43] Speaker D (unidentified): even shut up like one of those text alerts where like if I wanted to opt in I could sign up to get like an alert whenever the bacteria is, I mean, that would make me crazy, I would never [41:56] Suzanne Williams: But that's one way you could do it. My biggest concern in trying to do something in real time without real-time information is that we're removed. Like, so if we go to, and let's say we take an extra step, we're putting flags out or whatnot, we don't really know. Like, we're, we're, we're basically confirming that the water quality is good without having tested it again and again and again, right? So we test on a Tuesday, it's high, the bacterial level is high. By Wednesday when they test later in the afternoon, maybe it goes down, and so all good. And so if we're, if we're taking the extra step of putting flags out or removing flags based on that, I don't, I just, I don't feel, I think the real-time thing was the important part of that, and we don't have real-time information. So I would feel uncomfortable taking additional steps to alert the public, because if there's no alert, you're basically saying that water quality is fine, but we don't know that, because we're not testing on Thursday morning or Friday at low tide or Sunday. [43:14] Speaker C (unidentified): And after September 1st, we don't test. [43:16] Chair: Right, and after September 1st, we don't test. [43:19] Suzanne Williams: And then we don't test at all. It's a public health issue. I think the fire department, who basically, they're the beach managers, I think maybe it should be something that the town does based, you know, through the fire department. [43:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Department. They let us report to the fire department, I believe, don't they? Yeah. I mean, [43:46] Suzanne Williams: they're the beach managers. I don't know that this belongs. And then this is a conversation for the town, but it's a public health issue. And I think it's a valid one. Let people know when there's a problem. But right now we don't know when there's a problem. So how do we let [44:00] Chair: people know? Right. And we're only using that one test and we're not sure logistically how to use this bio meme. I feel like there's a lot of things that aren't in place to create some sort of warning system, and I think it needs a further discussion with guidance from the select board. [44:20] Speaker D (unidentified): That's how I feel. I mean, I think it needs some guidance. I think the way you worded it is makes [44:26] Speaker C (unidentified): a lot of sense. Okay, the other thing is I think we should work with the select board and sustainability to actually see if this machine that we have, where it is, does it work, are strips still available. I mean, because we keep talking about it, but we don't. [44:42] Chair: And we keep going around and around and around. I know Margie connected with John Bucci this summer, it seems to me. And then she wrote me an email and she said he said that the strips would be available, whatever. And for me, I need to talk to him. Like, if we're going to take this on, I need, and I can't. [45:03] Speaker C (unidentified): Maybe we invite him for a meeting. [45:06] Chair: Problem is I can't, I can't get any contact information and I don't know if he has that. [45:10] Speaker C (unidentified): but i know do you want if he's out there you can find him i 've done that i've tried and i've got [45:16] Chair: no response i sent two emails to him way back like at the end of last year just asking about the biome and i got no response so i 'm i don't know if he's still there but i 'm willing to keep as i said to you and we i keep saying the same thing over and over i'm willing to give it to go i just need somebody with some expertise instead of it's there on the shelf and we got to use it i need to understand logistically just the specifics of it well how do you do it select board what happens when i mean i need that 's what we need [45:51] Speaker C (unidentified): Something, I don't, we can't go to select bar without saying we have this machine, Excel works and these strips are going to cost, excellent, our intent to use it this way, it, and we have to have people that are trained to do it, these are the people that are going to do it, and this is where it's going to happen, and I, and I just don't, this is the cost, there's a cost to it because it costs something. So, and then how we, the follow-on to that would be how we alert the public, and Suzanne's got her hand up. Go ahead, Suzanne. [46:24] Suzanne Williams: Oh, I just want to talk over you to me. Real time means every day. Real time just means we're on top of it, we know what the water quality is. With conversations with Mandy, it seems like, you know, the cost of everybody's trying to protect the cost of the equipment and the investment we made, it's, it's the, it's the cost of the employee who's going to run this, the labor. I mean, this is not a volunteer activity. This has to be something that the town does, and I don't think the town has the manpower right now and is willing to set somebody aside who can do real-time tests. I mean, it's a PCR test. It's something you have to sit with for, you know, for a couple hours. I just don't think it's practicable. And we also talked about how the results right now with this particular test don't correlate with what Maine Healthy Beaches has. I think it's a moot point. I think if somebody wants to take this on, I think it's great, but real-time means you always know what the water quality is, and we don't. [47:30] Chair: We can't. I think, and you're right, Mandy said we don't have the manpower in the town. I mean, you know, in other words, it's not a volunteer thing. It needs a dedicated individual that's going to do this, and at this point, there is nobody. [47:49] Speaker C (unidentified): Somebody so I just write up a list of questions, you know, where this machine is, who's been trained on the machine, you know, where we get information from this machine, and you know, either submit them to sustainability to see if they have any input in on that, know the answers to any of these, and Mandy and then take it to the select board and say, is this something you want to continue, you use it, if not, tell us and we will stop, you know, and I don't know, I have no idea, do we have a quote-unquote Public health officer and who would that be, right, that makes sense to [48:32] Chair: Have some leads first, right, yeah, I mean, I would, you be willing to just write up, yeah, I'll write that up, that would be just great, and just because the questions are in your mind, yes. And I don't want to shut people down. I don't want to shut the discussion down. I just can't go any further because of the issues we've just raised. [48:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Actually, I don't even know how to spell it. [Chair: It's B-I-O-M-E-M-E.] M-E-M-E. Okay. I-O-M-E. I-O-M-E. [49:05] Chair: I-O-M-E. Okay. And it's watertight. And you can look it up and Google it, too. Okay. Okay. Let's keep going, shall we? Okay. Keep going here. So, we've already said that, water resources three is under our, water resources. So hold on. The number eight is yes, developing, you know, that's the, catch basin. So we, were in like, I mean, that's under ours. Let's look at number nine, limit development along streams and rivers. so again that's goes back to number one 5a and 5e which we feel like it's better suited to concom's mission and we'd be happy to collaborate with that but that's the same idea about limiting development or looking to setbacks for the back or you know but i think is everybody comfortable that 's purple that we're not you know taking that on yes it's kind of we'd be okay [50:05] Speaker D (unidentified): All right, that's something your town, your town needs a vote for the land use stuff like you'd, you'd have to put that to town meeting, or could the planning board? [50:13] Chair: Yeah, I think it would become a planning board for what? [50:17] Speaker D (unidentified): For the setback. [50:18] Speaker C (unidentified): For the setback. That would be a planning board. Or an exchange. That would be an ordinance change. [50:22] Speaker D (unidentified): That would be a big project. Yeah. Yeah. [50:25] Speaker C (unidentified): And right now, I know they're very busy. Right. With all the new state regulations that are coming down. Right. Yes. Yes. [50:38] Chair: So, again, I'm happy to collaborate with people, but I don't think we take that on as a... [50:43] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't think that's the number one priority for us right now. [50:46] Chair: No. So, 11 through 14, you can take a look at them, but we really feel there was no direct connection to the action plan. Suzanne and I look carefully so does designate critical natural resources as critical resource areas and provide future land that's concom number 11 [51:15] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, you know and number 14 is definitely concom because number 12 is developed distribute and [51:23] Chair: make available to the town website a guide pamphlet describing all that's, that's a good project for them. I mean, I, that would be a nice thing to have, that would be great. And yeah, 13 is really the town treasurer and maybe concom is involved, but make information available to those living near critical natural resources such as shoreland zones about current tax programs. Yeah, and applicable locate, and that's, that's a wonderful thing, but that's not us. And then 14 continually inform the community about the town's pesticide and herbicide ordinance amend the town's pesticide herbicide ordinance to adopt safe fertilizer ordinance and you know Suzanne and I talked about this a couple days ago and it and you know yes it's really important for water quality that you know the banning of pesticides was a major thing that Conservation Commission did. Again that's a major sort of feather in their cap and I feel like that's a good thing for them to pick up and go [52:27] Speaker C (unidentified): with. For them to review because yeah I don't know how much of it's still clickable, how much needs to be tightened up on that. I know there's a lot of waivers out there on there. I know the Marginal Way has waivers because they don't spray, but they paint on the stump or the swallow or feet. [52:47] Chair: No, it's the bittersweet. Bittersweet and not. [52:51] Speaker C (unidentified): No, they paint that, and people think they spray and they don't. They paint. Right. So, I mean, and that they will do that. Yeah. So I think it might be something that, you know, I don't think we need to spend time on it, but that could be something that as one chair to another, you could say to the chair of CONCOM, you know, this is definitely not in our purview that, you know, maybe you want to go back and re-examine that. [53:16] Chair: Well, I helped you represent Gunquit a couple of years ago, did a survey that sort of was trying to find out how many people were aware of the ordinance. [53:25] Speaker C (unidentified): I know all the landscape companies are, because even though they say pesticides, they say we can't use this, we can't use that. We would love to use, I had somebody come and look at my trees and said I would love to use this something but I can't you live in an uncle I cannot do that and [53:44] Chair: they use granule, you know, the granular organic stuff, but yeah, I don't know your thoughts [53:52] Suzanne Williams: Suzanne on that. Yeah, I think, you know, this also appears on CONCOM's list and I think they're going to be excited to pick it up. Right. So it's also on theirs. I think, you know, it's, I think they'll probably want to take the lead and I think that's great. I think so too. I think Hero would be happy to work with them too on that, but I don't think it's, it's a watershed. I mean, of course almost everything's a watershed issue, but I don't think this is something that our committee should take the lead on. Well, and I don't mean to be so militant about the action [54:31] Chair: items, but it really is not, and there's nothing there in the action items particularly about that. So I, you know, I feel like we need to, we've got enough on our plate, you know, but I think it's a great thing, and maybe Hero can continue to work with CONCOM. That would be great. [54:46] Speaker C (unidentified): I think 16 is ours. Yeah. [54:49] Chair: And so 15, 16 and 17 are ours. 17 is, 17, I just went right out of my head. Oh, about landowners to protect water quality, and that's that idea. You know, we talked about creating a new watershed map for outreach materials. I mean, I feel like that whole thing about reaching out to landowners and further sort of education about what the Agunquit River watershed, where are the boundaries? What is it? I think that's a, I think that would be a good thing for us to fund, you know, for next year. We have the money. I showed you the budget. We have money in our budget for it. And so I think we just have to, I mean, maybe this is time to have that discussion, but if we authorized someone to sort of look into creating that watershed map and making it more user-friendly, I think just so that people will understand, you know, where are we, and make it more interesting and more dynamic. [55:59] Suzanne Williams: And I think we, in the budget, we have $800 for graphic design on [56:09] Chair: that. Here we go. Yeah. Yeah. We have $800 for that. So I don't know if that's something we, well, first of all, we're going to have to just make a motion to, I will write up the thing for the select board. I will include items 6, 8, 15, 16, and 17, and I will kind of explain. I don't need, I don't know if I needed to talk about the things that are in purple and red. I need your advice about that. No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't, I [56:42] Speaker C (unidentified): would preface what I wrote to the select board that we've discussed this, and there are, there are duplicate items on both the Conservation Commission and Providence Sustainability, which we don't have here, and us, that some of those actions may be served by a other committee or commission that's already working on that. Okay. And just leave it at that. I can do that. And then if they want to know what those are later from you, we can tell them. Okay. But then I would say what we're going to be working on. That's right. And again, for things like number 17, I think that's more of a long-range goal. Totally. So that's not in the next year. [57:25] Chair: But I think we could start, again, nothing has to be, they make it really clear that we don't have to fulfill all these priorities. [57:34] Speaker C (unidentified): I mean, maybe the University of Maine Corporate Extension already does stuff like that. We can find out who's there and what they're doing. And maybe SMPTC already has that for all we know. [57:45] Chair: That's true. We see. What were you going to say? [57:47] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, I was just going to say all that, all they're asking for, right, is just what we're going to do next year. [57:52] Chair: Yeah. Priorities. These are the priorities. And so I'm going to put these in and just say this is, you know, a lot to work on. So it has a lot of crossover. So do we want to make a motion on that to prove me actually doing that? [58:09] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't think we need to do that. I do think we need to, when does it have to be to them by, that's the question. [58:17] Chair: Well, it's, they told me it was due today, but I know [58:21] Speaker C (unidentified): other two other companies that aren't putting it in today [58:24] Chair: But saying it needs to be in by this week, by the end of this, by tomorrow, but maybe by their next select board meeting. [58:32] Speaker C (unidentified): I mean, I think we [Chair: need a motion.] I make a motion that our chair, Jane Green, develops a list of the government watershed committee's priorities for the next year to be delivered to the select board. You know, and I would, if this is a draft, I would also say, you know, in draft form, you know, that, yep, and I don't think we have to get into huge detail that would, but my motion though would [59:11] Chair: be the motions out there. Do we have a second? I'll second. All those in favor? Sure. Do we have to roll call it, or now they have to roll call it? Suzanne, how do you vote? Yes. Avery? Yes. [59:28] Speaker C (unidentified): Pam? Yes. And I also am a yes. Okay, I will, I will handle that. All right, could you send that to the committee prior? Just absolutely, same time. Absolutely, I will. And I just want to pick up [59:43] Chair: what I was talking about before. I believe we have to off, we'd have to, we'd have to authorize money for the, for the watershed map, but I would, since things move, tend to move kind of slowly, you know, I, would kind of like to, I'd like to move forward with that. So [1:00:05] Suzanne Williams: Suzanne, are you willing? I would volunteer to, yeah, to basically head up a subcommittee, if you will, to handle that, or just a task group to handle that. I bet that Avery's GIS information would be super helpful too, and that's great, and maybe you could work together [1:00:27] Speaker D (unidentified): on that. 'd be awesome. Yeah, I have my, I have the license through the school until December, so, as long as we can access it before that, I should be able to do some, you know, I can't, I promise that it'll be too much help because I'm learning how to use it. But at least we can load it into the software and just look at it, you know. [1:00:49] Suzanne Williams: I think that would be super. [1:00:52] Chair: And according to the new, or according to the member handbook, we need to, as a committee, vote on the amount of money before it's put into the. So I know you said eight hundred dollars, right? [1:01:06] Speaker C (unidentified): Well, I don't know how much it's going. We don't know. We don't have a bid. Right. Right. We can't actually say that they can do the task force, can do the work. Right. And then they come back to us and say, you know, we're going to cost. We estimate that, you know, based on a bid or based on whatever they find out what it's going to cost. Right. I don't think we can carte blanche, just say 800 is going to cost $800. [1:01:30] Chair: No. And that was a, that was really an estimate also for this. [1:01:35] Speaker C (unidentified): So part of the group has come up with what the cost would be. and then at our meeting okay then we vote to authorize okay thank you is it you do you think [1:01:44] Chair: he can for our next meeting sort of come up with a, you know, an out, whatever outreach you do to [1:01:49] Suzanne Williams: companies that might design this, we can define the scope of it enough so that we could get some sort of bid to work on it. Sure, that would be, that'd be great, that would be great. All right, [1:02:00] Chair: so now I'm looking at the, look at me with my sunglasses on. All right, can I go? Okay, I think we're, I think we're pretty much done. I will just say one thing that the Norseman has the table tents. 94 table tents I delivered to the Norseman. The guy was great. Ogunquit Tides has agreed. Sea Chambers has agreed. I think it's Sea Chambers, and the Norseman, and I'm waiting to hear from the Trident Inn. I haven't heard from them, but those other three have, and the Gunquit Tides actually owns another business as well, and it's gone out of my head. I feel terrible that I don't, but they've been lovely, and they have basically, I'm, I coordinated with Norseman yesterday and delivered, so I'm just waiting to coordinate with our, but so, oh, so that's awesome, right, that's fantastic. All right, anything else, anybody, or anybody online, is there anybody online? No hands, okay. Do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Damn, sorry. Seconds. How do you vote? Suzanne? Yes. Avery? Yes. Pam? Yes. And I, too, am a guest. Thanks, everybody. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much.