HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 06 01 2010_201402041900177569ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP
MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 1ST, 2010
AT 10:30 AM, CONFERENCE ROOM, 2 FAIRGROUNDS ROAD
Approved Minutes
Attendance
Members Present: Peter Boyce, Cormac Collier, Carolyn Ellis, David Fronzuto, Bam
LaFarge, Mark Lucas, Wendy McCrae, Mike Misurelli, Richard Ray, Lee Saperstein,
Ernest Steinauer, and Lucinda Young
Members Absent: Seth Rutherford
Administrative Assistant: Jim Sutherland
Guests: Rick Atherton, Natalie Marcus, Ron Shepherd, Whitey Willauer
Call to Order
Chairperson (CP) Lucinda Young called the meeting to order at 10:31 am. The meeting agenda,
provided previously, was introduced and CP Young solicited comments on it.
Bam LaFarge asked whether it would be appropriate to have a location in the meeting agenda
where there could be discussion about items that don’t fall into other agenda categories. CP
Young mentioned that she wanted to incorporate some other issues at this meeting under Agenda
Item 4, Announcements, e.g., the protocol for accepting and posting future documents on the
Town web-site.
CP Young mentioned Agenda Item 6a, Continued review of draft regulation found in Article 68
– Examination of results of previous discussion as presented in the partial draft of May 18, 2010,
and asked about postponing this item until review of the whole document can take place. There
was a consensus that a broad overview would be more appropriate for the regulation review
process when we had a complete first draft.
Approval of Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2010
The minutes had been distributed previously. There was one comment about the spelling of a
name, ‘John Wisentauer’ should be ‘Jonathan Wisentaner’. Lee Saperstein had a question for the
group related to an item, or items, not approved by the group, specifically the working document;
should the group be in control of what documents and materials are released if they are not yet
‘official’? It was agreed that the group does have control and that draft documents can ‘exist’
and do not have to be ‘attached’ for public review.
MOTION: There was a motion made by Wendy McCrae, seconded by Peter Boyce, that the
minutes of the May 18, 2010, meeting be approved with the suggested spelling correction.
Motion passed.
Announcements and Reports
CP Young announced that Jim Sutherland had been hired by the Town to record the minutes of
each meeting and to provide general assistance with other administrative duties. CP Young also
announced that Peter Boyce, Lee Saperstein and she had an informal meeting Monday last (May
25th) to set the agenda for today’s meeting and to set interim goals with a time-line for
completion of our charge. An outline of the time-line will be provided for review at the next
meeting.
Dave Fronzuto, Marine Superintendent, Department of Coastal and Marine Resources, was
introduced and provided a report for the work group on the harbor and water quality, including
historical aspects. He presented an overview as to where Nantucket is, at this point, in terms of
marine and lacustrine water quality. There is a lot of mis-information and an unknown
educational component. During the late 1980’s, Nantucket started working with Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, WHOI, and Dr. Brian Howes. This was a public and private-funded
effort that cost about one million dollars. Nantucket has been in the forefront of water quality
efforts as compared with the rest of the Commonwealth. In the early 1990’s, extensive sampling
was needed and there were two full-time Town biologists to gather samples. For comparison,
currently, there is one full-time biologist, and one vacant position, which is affected by the hiring
freeze. Tasks were divided into water quality/water sampling and work on shellfish propagation.
From 1993–2008, the Town continued water-quality sampling and data collection. Around
2000, the Massachusetts Estuaries Project was initiated. The Town had plenty of data, having
spent from $30,000 – $50,000 per year, so there was a lot of documentation. Now, what was
needed was interpretation. The Estuaries Project had the ability to analyze data and develop a
TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) as a planning tool for embayments.
Superintendent Fronzuto next explained the Federal No-Discharge Zone designation: no treated
or untreated sewage can be discharged within the Nantucket Zone, which is within a line drawn
between Great Point and Muskeget Island. Boats must “hold” their black water until it can be
discharged into an appropriate sewer line. The Town pumps a total of 35,000 – 40,000 gallons of
sewage from boats each year; the total for all pumping facilities is 100,000 – 120,000 gallons per
year; there are 240 slips with hook-ups for sewage to be pumped. The program receives about
75 percent of its funding from the Federal Clean Vessel Act. During the months of July and
August about 3,100 -3,300 boats are pumped out.
The Estuaries Project was explained. There are three segments including Nantucket Harbor-
Sesachacha Pond, Madaket Harbor–Long Pond, and Hummock Pond. The Critical Embayments
Inventory had 11 communities identified in the Round 1 review. Nantucket went to the table
with their documentation. In the final analysis, the Nantucket Harbor-Sesachacha Pond TMDL
cost the Town of Nantucket zero dollars based upon the existence of previously collected data
and documentation. In the context of this discussion, Dave provided an idea of how much other
local communities have spent on monitoring for the same final result (Chatham, $300,000;
Falmouth, $340,000; Yarmouth $500,000). Nantucket dollars had been well-spent on previous
monitoring. Madaket Harbor had been studied, but there was not enough data collection for it to
be included in Round 1. Round 2 of the Critical Embayments Review had 13 critical
embayments; Madaket Harbor was not included. An assessment was made that more work was
required. Based upon the data available, there was a re-evaluation of Madaket Harbor and it was
finally included in the Project. the total cost for Madaket will be $120,000, of which, $20,000
will still be owed when final report is provided in Fall 2010. This part of the Project includes
Madaket Harbor, HitherCreek, the wetland ditch that runs into Long Pond, and Long Pond, four
sections comprise the Madaket Harbor component. Because of the nearness of septic systems to
the groundwater, Hither Creek never will open to shellfishing; Madaket Harbor is closed July 1st
to December 31st of each year, which is now an automatic closure. Harbor water quality did
improve while the Smith Point cut was open but then declined when the cut closed up again.
Brian Howes has said the status of Nantucket Harbor has remained ‘the glass is full’, which is to
say that its quality is within limits but tipping anything more into the Harbor will cause it to
exceed contaminant thresholds, i.e. the glass is full and it can’t take any more. To prevent it
from going over the tipping point, something needs to be done about storm-water, sewage and
fertilizer. After-the-fact Harbor remediation would cost major dollars.
During Round 3 of the Critical Embayments Inventory, Hummock Pond was not on the list in
spite of lots of data collected; however, Hummock Pond was included, however, in 4th round and
sampling of it has been occurring for the past 4-5 years.
The Vineyard (Dukes County) and Nantucket are the only Commonwealth communities to
receive state funds for shellfish propagation. Based upon a legislative act, $45,000 per year is
designated in the State budget for propagation efforts in the two counties. Nantucket receives
half, $22,500, and adds to it 75 percent of annual shell fishing license fees ,which average
$60,000 per year; the other 25 percent goes to salaries, equipment, etc. The total budget is
$80,000 - $85,000 per year for shellfish propagation; the annual variability is a function of the
number of licenses sold.
During 2008, the Town biologist left; the other position was vacant from the hiring freeze. As a
result, there was no one to collect routine samples -- mandated samples were collected to test for
fecal coliform --; thus, there was no water-quality sampling. During December 2009, Tara Riley
was hired as Town biologist; she has an extensive background and was Director of Operations
for the largest shellfish hatchery on the east coast. Tara Riley provides a very strong
commitment; she is re-establishing the shellfish hatchery on Nantucket.
The Nantucket Community Association wanted more water quality sampling in the Harbor;
funds have been solicited for this. A gift of $45,000 - $50,000 has been provided by several
organizations to continue the sampling work. Data analysis will be provided by the School for
Marine Science and Technology, UMass Dartmouth, SMAST. Sampling is to be conducted by
Nantucket’s Marine Department personnel who have been trained just recently; they started
sampling in April of this year -- the SMAST contract specifies the analysis of 388 total samples
for nitrogen, phosphorous, chlorophyll, and physical measurements. All ponds, Nantucket
Harbor and Madaket harbor are being sampled; there is some sampling flexibility around
weather events. A draft report on 2010 water quality will be available in February 2011; a public
forum will be held during June 2011 and the final report will be released that month also. The
Town hoped for a three-year funding commitment but received only a one-year commitment
Dave Fronzuto discussed storm-water remediation on Nantucket for which millions of dollars
have been spent. Examples include remediation at the High School, the Silver Street Parking lot
and the wetland at the end of the Washington Street extension (runoff from Orange and Union
drains there). Another project currently on the table is the Consue Springs watershed; the
intention is to make a working wetland instead of a dumping bed.
In closing, Dave emphasized the importance of moving forward with fertilization issue and
keeping the ‘glass full’ instead of spilling over…..
Questions for Dave Fronzuto:
Are there differences in how boaters handle sewage vs. grey water? Sewage is called black
water and comes from the head (marine toilet) and goes to a black-water tank holding tank. Grey
water includes discharge from sinks, showers, washing machines, boat wash-downs, etc.;
dumping of grey water is prohibited in Nantucket Harbor by Town Bylaw. Unfortunately,
holding tanks for grey-water are non-existent on most recreational boats, except in the newest or
most recently retrofitted boats. The use of dishwashers/washing machines has been banned in
Nantucket Harbor. The average pump-out volume is 25 gallons per boat; most sewage tanks are
very small; manufacturers haven’t gotten the message. Grey-water is a tough issue to resolve.
Lee Saperstein asked, regarding the original Howes report: March 1997, “Nantucket Harbor
Study - A Quantitative Assessment of the Environmental Health,” which is not available
electronically, can it be made available? An attempt will be made
Whitey Willauer asked about pump-out in federal waters beyond the no-discharge limit? Dave
Fronzuto responded that there is a movement to designate all of Nantucket Sound as a Federal
No Discharge Zone; boats can still go out beyond the three-mile limit and pump out. Luckily
the majority of boat pump-out will be in Hyannis and Woods Hole for Steamship Authority and
HyLine boats. The next question was about pleasure boats. Will they not be allowed to pump
out in that area and it was suggested that enforcement by the Town can go out to 3 miles. It will
be necessary to educate people at the dock that Nantucket Sound water quality is declining and
their cooperation is essential. Water samples for nutrient analysis are collected at certain times
and certain parts of the tide cycle; an extended Federal No Discharge Zone should help improve
water quality in the area.
CP Young asked if sampling can tell about different sources of pollution. The answer is ‘no’;
however, any reduction is going to be helpful.
Richard Ray, Health Director, was introduced and provided background on Department of
Health (DOH) activities. Dave Fronzuto conducts diagnostic studies, Richard Ray conducts
remediation work; this system works well for Nantucket. Nantucket Harbor water quality has
been studied since 1978. He described early work in the Harbor area. At first, they thought that
water-quality problems were associated with water-based issues; following their regimen of
sampling, they realized that the water quality issues are land-based. The best example was the
Children’s Beach discharge pipe; most water-quality samples collected for coliform bacteria
came back TNTC (colonies too numerous to count). It was found that many houses were
plumbed into the storm-water drain pipe rather than the sewer; once these connections were
corrected the water-quality at the beach improved to the point that it is one of the best in the
Harbor. This was the example that proved the issue was land-based.
Land-based use is contributing to the overall water-quality problems in Nantucket Harbor; the
primary reason for these problems is the short depth from surface or from buried septic systems
to ground-water (5 feet below), which drains to the Harbor. The Harbor watershed was
evaluated for its contaminant potential. With its regulatory authority, the DOH developed
regulations in two zones that drain into Nantucket Harbor; these were designated septic system
inspection areas and were determined by their proximity to the Harbor. The new regulations
allowed two years for inspections. A local ordinance was passed authorizing the inspection and
the program started 5 years ago. There are 602 systems in the entire area and inspections took
longer than expected. The inspection period was extended by two years given the amount of
work involved and the program was completed about five months ago. A map was provided to
the Group (available from the Department of Health) that showed areas where systems are a
problem: 596 systems were inspected; 516 were compliant and passed; 80 systems failed (either
hydraulic or technical); hydraulic failures were fixed right away; the technical failures were
given a 1-1/2 year period for remediation.
Madaket Harbor was approached in the same manner but problems became more difficult to
define and, consequently to fix. The zone of contribution – from groundwater to the Harbor –
was defined, also with two areas in this watershed. Time periods were imposed on the different
areas. It was an ambitious program and there is a need to educate people to the urgency of this
problem. The inspection process is about one-half completed; septic systems are in worse shape
out here. The process of remediation also is complicated because of the seasonality of residence
in this area. There are more technical issues since many systems do not meet code; homes are
older. Assistance will be provided to homeowners for remediation; Richard Ray plans to bring
up this issue at the next Town meeting. His proposal is to create a superfund for septic repair to
which a homeowner may apply for remediation funding; if the owner agrees to pay the money
back, the loan amount is paid over time and added to annual tax bill. Interest charges will
intentionally be kept low. This system takes the burden off of the home-owner; the proposed
system will ask the State for ½ million dollars to expedite remediation.
Richard Ray showed maps of systems that potentially affect water quality in the harbors; many
properties dealt with by landscape individuals are within the problems areas.
Questions for Richard Ray:
Lee Saperstein asked about the proposed Old Historic District swimming pool on Orange Street;
where would the pool pump-out go? Richard Ray didn’t know the answer; pools have to be
chlorinated, so that has to be a consideration. Saperstein also asked what happens to Town
sewage sludge. Sludge gets added to the digester at the landfill; it is an organic component, but
the makeup is not assured; however, it is tested regularly for heavy metals and is provided as
compost and mulch.
Saperstein also asked about Working Group options within DOH regulations; could health-based
regulations be able to handle fertilizer issues. The answer was definitely yes; algae blooms are a
health issue and regulations to help prevent a health problem can be created within Board of
Health purview. Thus, there could be enforcement actions associated with fertilizer regulations.
The next question was what constitutes technical failure? The answer is, primarily, the closeness
to ground-water; 6 feet minimum separation is required; if less than that amount, then technically
the system fails. Nantucket is the only town that fails cesspools based upon definition. The
average septic system produces 20-35 ppm nitrogen loading; with a 6-foot separation that value
could stay in the range of 25-30 ppm; alternative technology could get that value down to 8-12
ppm. Seasonal systems are a problem since they are not used regularly. Systems that produce
the lowest N loading are systems that function 24/7. An internal biological mat is needed for
proper operation. If there is a period of inactivity, the mat needs to re-build when the system is
not used regularly. Systems can be rejected down until proven to be effective –
Cormac Collier offered a comment: inspection programs for Nantucket Harbor and Madaket
Harbor are very significant and effective; however, Title 5 septic systems, working well and
passing inspection, still present a nitrogen problem for harbors and other waters. With regard to
the Nitrogen TMDL and the work group charged with reducing fertilizer impacts through
regulations and education, if we bring down the amount from 20 percent to 10 percent, are we
doing our job properly? Also, how do we use the estuaries hydrodynamic model to determine if
we are making an impact? Richard Ray replied that it costs the Town money to run the model,
about $2,000 per run. He thinks that we can reach the TMDL in Nantucket Harbor but that the
TMDL for Madaket Harbor will be more difficult to achieve.
Whitey Willauer asked if we can determine where the hot spots are for fertilizer? Richard Ray
says you can’t determine by testing harbor and pond water quality; either it can’t be done or is
too expensive. He did suggest that aerial photography could reveal the intensely green lawns.
Perhaps, also, we could utilize the Nantucket coast guard with special cameras; monitoring wells
are another option.
Adjourn
MOTION: At this point, a motion was made by Mike Misurelli, seconded by Bam Lafarge, to
adjourn the meeting. The motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:06 pm.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 15th at 10:30 am in the Conference Room at 2 Fairgrounds Road
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Sutherland, Administrative Assistant
Lee W. Saperstein, Secretary