APCC Cyanobacteria Warnings, Methods Disputed By Brewster Board

BREWSTER – What began two summers ago as a dispute between Brewster health officials and the Association to Preserve Cape Cod over the classification of pond safety conditions has erupted into a fresh conflagration.

Board members cited a “Jaws”-like scene after a cyanobacteria warning was issued for Sheep Pond by the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), while the head of the organization called the board’s response “cartoonish.”

The APCC has monitored and sampled ponds for cyanobacteria levels, with the help of local pond associations, for years. When cyanobacteria die, the cell ruptures and can release toxins, collectively called cyanotoxins. Some toxins could cause skin rash. Swallowing water with high levels of cyanotoxins could lead to gastrointestinal problems or, very rarely, worse, the health board noted in a letter to the select board. 

The APCC website has an interactive map where ponds are flagged as acceptable, potential for concern (yellow) and use restriction warranted (red). As of Monday, Cliff Pond in Nickerson State Park was in the red based on visual evidence from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and an advisory from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Many other Cape ponds are also in the red on the map.

“The public health department establishes public health risk, not the APCC,”  Board of Health Chair Dave Bennett declared at the board’s July 1 meeting.

The health board is the only organization that can post a use advisory at a local pond. In conjunction with the town department of natural resources and Brewster Ponds Coalition, the board monitors 19 ponds, not including Cliff Pond in Nickerson State Park, which is on state land, and have deemed them all at acceptable levels of cyanobacteria. Sheep Pond, which the health department monitors, was flagged by the APCC earlier this summer for potential concern, which led to calls to the police and a “‘Jaws’ scene” according to the board, where panicked citizens rushed from the water as the police arrived. The board had multiple discussions on this, culminating in a letter to the select board, which was reviewed on Monday. A counter letter read to the board by APCC President Andrew Gottlieb was also read at the meeting.

“Brewster’s residents are so terrified that they’re calling the police emergency number to get a policeman over there to clear the beach at Sheep Pond because there is a potential for concern,” health board member Kim Pearson said at the July 1 meeting. “That’s not fair to our residents. There is no scientific evidence that they should be worried and that is despicable.”

She took aim at the APCC methodology which estimates the amount of toxin present based on the detection of pigment (phycocyanin) and bacterial biomass.

“There is no association between biomass and anatoxin (a neurotoxin produced by some cyanobacteria) that has been demonstrated yet,” Pearson said. “And to use the terms ‘it may be’ or ‘could be if we do it this way’ is no way to practice public health. There has to be a reason to take a public health action. There has to be a demonstrable risk, and there is none here.”

Gottlieb offered his rebuttal into the record at the select board’s July 13 meeting.

“You have been presented a demonized, simplistic and cartoonish characterization of our program,” he said. 

He noted that the APCC obtained approval of their sampling methods from the state agencies with oversight on water sampling methods. On July 1, Pearson agreed the APCC had those approvals as part of their quality assurance project plan (QAPP), but they did not have approval from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

“They filed [the QAPP] at the end of 2024 season and the first thing they did in 2025 was change what they are going to do,“ Pearson said. “Rather doing what they said they were going to do, which was well documented, they said they are going to classify ponds using fixed pigment cut points that are based on one genus, but we’re applying that to all genera of cyanobacteria without any sort of modifications.”

Gottlieb disagreed.

“[Brewster Health Director Dan Syriala] is incorrect that the sampling methods, and that is what the QAPP is really about, have diverged from those approved by the agencies with relevant experience in the matter,” Gottlieb told the select board. “You have been told that colors on our map reflect implied and calculated toxin levels. That is incorrect. The colors on the map are determined based on toxin levels measured on our behalf by the Barnstable County Health Department, phycocyanin measurements from water samples that APCC and our volunteers collect and analyze, the presence or absence of visual scum and from input, when offered, by town health agents.”

On June 30, the APCC listed Long Pond as a pond of potential concern. Syriala went out to investigate.

“We’ve had reports from the APCC. We’ve investigated all of them,” he said on July 1. “We have not found anything we have to issue an advisory on. We’ve continued to monitor several ponds, including Long Pond, [on] which APCC put out an advisory today. We were there yesterday an hour after we got the initial report and visited it again this morning. Conditions were excellent.”

Syriala told the select board on July 13 that he was getting repeated calls from concerned citizens about pond conditions.

“The risk of this [APCC methodology] is we are going to get a lot of over-alerting on ponds that contain genera that do not or in very small amounts produce microcystin, and I think we’re seeing a lot of that this summer, Sheep Pond being the first example,” Pearson said on July 1. 

Gottlieb defended the APCC’s approach.

“You have been told that we rely exclusively on an approach developed by one of Dr. Pearson’s associates, and that is not true,” he said. “You have been told that approach, upon which we do not rely, is not appropriate for use by public health officials despite EPA’s own QAPP saying just the opposite.”

He also countered Pearson’s assertion that each pond should be evaluated based on its own background data and any estimate based on that. The state’s standards are “generic,” he said. 

“I am left to wonder why, as you should too, that generality is acceptable for MDPH but can be a misapplied criticism of APCC,” Gottlieb said.

Pearson was not alone in her concern that the estimates of toxin levels based on the APCC formula were not born out when ponds were examined. Health board member John Keith, who is also president of the Brewster Pond Coalition, said he met with scientists from the APCC.

“The ponds coalition does not want to be caught in the middle, just do the right thing,” Keith explained. “Everybody is trying to do good here.” But he still was concerned. 

Pearson said that last year, 37 samples were taken to rule out toxins and only 13 had measurable toxins. The season high biomass was linked to one of the lower toxin levels while conversely the highest recorded toxin level was found with one of the lower biomass numbers.

The APCC is not issuing public health advisories, Gottlieb noted. They provide information on the presence or absence of cyanobacteria. 

“Our approach relies on the simple principle that more cyanobacteria mass in the water creates a greater potential for a possible toxin event,” he said. “The inherent variability of how cyanobacteria presents has led APCC to the conclusion that conveying the complexity is an essential element of arming the public with the information they need to make informed decisions about water recreation.”

Health board members said this creates confusion and leads to constant questions and phone calls. 

The ponds coalition is looking at putting a listing of ponds and their current condition on its website, and the health department has already done so on theirs.

“Over time, APCC's sampling methods and field reports have moved away from the approved plan,” the health board wrote in a letter to the select board. “Instead of tailoring the analysis to which cyanobacteria are actually present in a sample, APCC assesses risk based on just one type of cyanobacteria; a type rarely found in Brewster’s ponds.”

They asked the board to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to review the APCC methodology and public communication and support the health board’s efforts to work with the DEP and EPA in ensuring the APCC matches the underlying science and public health guidance.

“The board of health’s goal is to ensure the public have access to trustworthy, credible reports they can use to make decisions about where to swim,” The letter concluded. The select board supported the letter by a 5-0 vote Monday.

Gottlieb stood his ground.

“This incident made us realize the system we had could be manipulated by town agents and impede our ability to independently convey our findings to the public,” Gottlieb said, “and so the APCC changed their risk tiers.”

“Attempts to silence or censor the information made available to the public concentrates power and authority in one voice,” he concluded. “What we will not do is sit silently in the face of mischaracterizations of our work and our findings, and that is why I am here tonight.”

Pearson countered that the pigment measure is used generically and the necessary background work has not been done.