Ask the Osprey answers water-related questions.  If you have a question, please send it to info@orleanspondcoalition.org and we will be happy to research it, answer it, and post in on the web.  Select questions will be chosen for publishing in Ponderings. 

Wastewater Q and A

How good is the data showing how much nitrogen is coming into our estuaries?

Massachusetts Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP) spent nearly ten years researching methodologies for determining nitrogen loading of embayments before selecting the Massachusetts Estuary Project (MEP) created by The School of Marine Science & Technology at UMass, Dartmouth.  MEP is a “linked model” which means it has combined several aspects of nitrogen loading to determine how much nitrogen is contained in an embayment and how much more it can absorb, as well as how much must be eliminated. 

Components of this model include water column nutrient levels from water samples collected by Orleans volunteers between 2000 and 2005, benthic regeneration of nutrients from the sediments on pond bottoms, fertilizers from homes and golf courses, road runoff and stormwater, hydrology rates and flushing of embayments, natural attenuation of nitrogen by freshwater ponds and marshes, atmospheric deposition and nutrients from septic systems.  Population statistics and estimates, water use data, and planning projections were provided by the town of Orleans.  Groundwater mapping and watershed delineations were provided by the US Geological Service and Cape Cod Commission.  Hydrological studies were based on US Army Corps of Engineers models.

Over the past several years, the majority of this data has been verified, and most of the separate methodologies thoroughly vetted by scientists.  However, the model in its entirety has not yet been formally peer reviewed which is why DEP has contracted with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Group to complete this study within the next year.  In addition, the Town of Orleans will conduct a separate peer review over the next several months to assure the accuracy of the estimates of required nitrogen removal.  The data are within an error rate of +/-10% by most estimates.

How do we know that reducing nitrogen loads by 55% overall will do the job?

There are multiple standards for healthy water.  These include visual clarity, oxygen levels, water nutrient levels, eelgrass distribution, and benthic infauna (critters living in the pond bottom sediments).  Scientists were able to determine how much nitrogen should be reduced by determining the source and amounts of nutrient loading under the Massachusetts Estuary Project.  There are many variables to these equations, including sources of nitrogen over which we have no control, such as atmospheric deposition, and other natural processes.  We can only estimate the number of year-round verses part-time residents or visitors our town will have over the next 25 years.  Assuming a fairly stable “mix” of nitrogen sources and reasonably accurate population estimates, the combined 55% nitrogen reduction should restore our waters to a healthy condition.  It is the best science available now.

How do we know that sewering about half our properties will achieve the needed reduction?

Our consulting engineers used water department records of water use over 2-3 years to determine each property’s water use and, hence, wastewater production.  They then included the largest producers in the closest-to-sewer-main locations.  This means that approximately 50% of town properties have been selected to result in an overall 55% reduction in nitrogen.  Selection of properties was also contingent upon subwatershed location (for instance, all properties within the Meetinghouse Pond watershed were included because that subwatershed will need to achieve 100% reduction of nitrogen).  Properties upgradient of freshwater ponds were included to reduce phosphate impacts to those water bodies.  No properties were selected within watersheds where no nutrient reduction is required.

Why aren’t “Tight Tanks” and gray water separation a better solution?

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rarely approves the use of tight tanks because they are difficult to monitor.  If a property owner wants to avoid costly frequent pumping, he can puncture the tank to allow wastewater to seep into the ground untreated.  Monitoring these tanks sufficiently to prevent abuse presents a considerable challenge.

Why isn’t dredging a better/cheaper solution?

In most cases, the bottoms of ponds are much deeper than the channels going into them.  While dredging can deepen the channel, it rarely comes close to reaching the depth of the pond.  In order for the pond to fully “flush,” both the bottom and top waters need to be replaced.  Dredging temporarily deepens the channel to improve the flush, but the pond will begin to fill in again the day after it is dredged.  Dredging is also a very destructive process, as it kills nearly all benthic infauna and releases silts into the water column and surrounding shorelines.  In addition, dredging does not address the source of the problem – nutrient loading – which continues to flow into the pond as the channel closes in.  Due to habitat destruction and the relatively short-term nature of the benefit, DEP does not favor dredging as a means of primary water quality improvement.  Despite these disadvantages, however, dredging is being explored as one element of our wastewater plan.  While it cannot replace sewering to eliminate nutrient loading, it may be able to reduce the amount of sewering needed and/or in conjunction with sewering give a “quick temporary” fix to impaired waters while we wait for the reduced nitrogen groundwater to reach the embayment.  Dredging does have the benefit of improving navigation.

Why won’t elimination of lawn fertilizers do the job?

Lawn fertilizers contribute about 10% of the “controllable” nitrogen to our embayments, and stormwater runoff contributes another 10%.  Septic systems contribute about 80%.  In order to reach the required 55% reduction of nitrogen, elimination of lawn fertilizers and/or stormwater runoff alone will not be enough to reach our goal.  However, the elimination of lawn fertilizers and stormwater runoff could result in a sufficient reduction of nitrogen to reduce the amount of necessary sewering and help us achieve a “quicker fix” to our waters.  It might also enable us to avoid implementation of the later phases of our wastewater plan. 

If the town is going to conduct a study to validate the Massachusetts Estuary Project (MEP), why don’t we wait for those results before voting on a draft Wastewater Plan?

The Draft Comprehensive Wastewater Plan is almost 95% “finalized,” but it still has room for modification and revision.  The draft calls for implementation of a “Core Plan” (needed to meet the TMDLs) in six phases over 20 years.  If our validation study shows less nitrogen needs to be removed and DEP approves those reductions, we can simply stop after fewer phases.  If, over time, we find that our population estimates are incorrect, or the Pleasant Bay breach shows evidence of improved water quality, we can alter phasing to “hook up” properties in another more impacted embayment’s watershed.  Or we might pool our resources with one of our neighbors to handle the combined sewering needs at a reduced cost to both towns.  If we find we require greater capacity due to faster deterioration of waters than anticipated, we might explore regional cooperation with Brewster and Harwich to manage southern areas of town at a time when those towns will be further along in their wastewater planning process.

Approval of a Draft Plan at this time does not commit the town to spend one penny.  It does not prevent us from making necessary changes.  But it does ensure that the lengthy State approval process begins.  So what’s the rush?  From a fiscal standpoint, the push to continue our wastewater planning process will enable us to fully maximize the interest-free loans available from the State Revolving Fund (the ‘O’Leary bill’).  While it is a complicated bill that requires clarification, a town’s entire wastewater plan could be covered under these interest-free loans if its conditions are met.  Funds become available in 2009 and will continue for the next 10 years.  But we cannot apply for the loans until we have a State-approved Comprehensive Wastewater Plan and final design specifications, a process that takes at least two to three years.  The clock is ticking, and there is no “down side” to going forward.

From an environmental standpoint, the ongoing deterioration of our waters should provide us with enough impetus to continue our focus on the plan.  The data used to determine nitrogen levels was gathered in 2000-2005, which means it reflects development up to the early to mid-1990’s.  Groundwater travels about a foot a day.  Think about the number of homes on your street in the ‘90s compared with today, and then do the same for the entire town.  From building department records, it was estimated that about 1200 bedrooms have been added to our town since 2003.  Consider the amount of nitrogen going into the groundwater, and remember that groundwater moves toward our estuaries every day.  If we approve the Draft Wastewater Plan now, the earliest we can sink a shovel in the ground is 2012, and the earliest we might begin to actually remove nitrogen from our groundwater would be 2014.  Tick tock, tick tock.

YIKES!  What happened to my pond?  The water turned green!  What’s happening?

Uncle Harvey’s Pond (located between Pochet and Barley Neck Roads in East Orleans) is undergoing an algal bloom this summer.  Algae are microscopic plant life that feed on nutrients in water.  They “bloom” (grow uncontrollably) when nutrient levels are high, water temperature is warm, and sunlight plentiful.  Blooms frequently occur after rainstorms, when nutrients from roadways, fertilized lawns, and the rain itself enters the pond.  Uncle Harvey’s also has a storm drain which empties directly into the pond.  Residents should avoid the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or dishwasher detergents containing phosphates.  Do not feed ducks, geese, or swans as this encourages more nutrient loading.

Do the “new” longer and shallower leaching fields remove more nitrogen from septic system effluent? 

The Osprey recruited Mike Giggey of Wright-Pierce (Environmental Engineers) to assist with this one, and he reports that Title 5 septic systems were never intended to remove nutrients from domestic or commercial wastewater.  If well designed, they do a good job of preventing pathogens (bacteria and virus) from reaching the groundwater or surface water, but they remove only moderate amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus.  Nitrogen comes out of our septic tanks in the form of ammonia, and in the presence of oxygen and naturally-occurring bacteria in the leaching field, will be converted to the nitrate form.  Nitrate is a nutrient that travels with the groundwater to contaminate our embayments.  To turn that nitrate into nitrogen gas (that can be released harmlessly into the atmosphere), the septic tank effluent must also pass through anaerobic (oxygen starved) conditions.  Innovative/alternative (I/A) systems can provide the cyclical aerobic/anaerobic conditions to better convert ammonia to nitrate and then nitrate to nitrogen gas.  However, traditional Title 5 systems were not designed to optimize that cyclical action, so very little nitrogen removal occurs after the septic tank.  This is true for both old-style leaching pits, as well as newer leaching trenches and leaching fields.   

Yes, no, and maybe.  Shortly after the inlet formation, Brian Howes and John Ramsey of the Massachusetts Estuary Project (MEP) opined that it was too soon to tell what the effect would be but that most likely there would be at most a 10% - 15% improvement in water quality in Pleasant Bay due to lack of a sufficiently strong “tidal pump” to clean out the terminal ponds (Meetinghouse Pond, Lonnie’s Pond, Arey’s Pond – those farthest from the break).  They added that any initial improvements would be expected to diminish over time if watershed nitrogen loading continues.  As the inlet has grown and continued to migrate north, more questions have been raised, and it was clear that additional data and studies would be needed.  The Town of Chatham and the Pleasant Bay Alliance investigated what information would be necessary and have put together a study with the Army Corps of Engineers, partially funded by Friends of Pleasant Bay.  Data is now being gathered and will be used this summer to update the hydrological model developed by the MEP.  This updated model will then be used to assess changes in water quality under the new dual inlet configuration.  It will also enable the Alliance towns to reassess water quality resulting from future changes in the inlet.  Wastewater plans could be modified accordingly if a phased approach to implementation is used.

If we’re going to pass a wastewater plan, why do we need to restrict the number of bedrooms per acre?  The Osprey defers to Robin Davis of the Orleans Board of Health:  "It would be great if installation of wastewater treatment facilities alone could solve a problem as daunting as the pollution that has deadened many area ponds, but unfortunately, it is not likely to be the case. In order for the Town of Orleans to meet the massive challenge of wastewater management, the Boards of Selectmen, Health, and Planning; the Wastewater Management Steering Committee; and the engineers who will ultimately design the plan, will need to work together. If the town hopes to ensure that the final solution is cost effective and efficacious, none of these parties can work in isolation. In this particular case, the Board of Health is drafting a regulation that will serve as a tool to predict the long-term generation of wastewater in Orleans. The regulation in question, which proposes restricting all lots to one bedroom per 10,000 square feet, with a minimum of two bedrooms, has been considered by the Board of Health in response to the needs of the steering committee and engineers in working to construct a wastewater management plan. This is an essential first step in developing a strategy to treat wastewater so that our waters may, one day, be returned to a pristine state. It is also similar to regulations already in effect in many towns in our vicinity, including Eastham, Wellfleet, and Chatham; as well as the water protection district within Orleans itself.

"Part of the responsibility of the Board/Department of Health is to meet the collective health and environmental needs of the population of Orleans. If implementation of a wastewater plan is delayed for too long, an order will be imposed on the town by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the town will quickly lose control of the location, design, and cost of any treatment protocol. This would bring public attention and negative press to what has so far been a rather subtle problem of the pollution of the environment of Orleans. It is therefore important for the people of Orleans to take the lead in developing a wastewater treatment plan.

"Of course, people, not bedrooms, produce the nitrogen that enters the septic waste and leaches out to pollute the watershed.  Title 5 septic systems do little to mitigate the suffocating effects of nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, on the ponds.  A wastewater management treatment plan that is designed without taking into consideration the population density it will serve is bound to be over- or under-designed.  In either case, this would result in an unacceptable environmental cost and financial burden to the citizens of Orleans. Therefore, it is necessary to have some means to predict the generation of wastewater of the town.  The proposed regulation, which is still in draft-phase and would not go into effect prior to the first of January 2009, would aid other boards and committees to move forward with the necessary technical and financial decisions necessary to design a fair plan to be considered for approval by the townspeople.

"The Board of Health has held public hearings, and continues to field questions at the public sessions of regular meetings, regarding this regulation.  While many citizens of Orleans have urged the board to move ahead with this regulation, the board has also heard the concerns of a few owners of substandard lots, who feel that they would be negatively affected.  In consideration of these citizens, the board has significantly modified the draft to address their concerns.  In response to the claim of some property owners that they would need more time to adequately plan for the regulation, the board has delayed the date of implementation.  While there is no time set, the regulation will not be in effect before the first of January of 2009.  With respect to property values and accommodating growth of young families, a provision has been made that a substandard lot may have an additional bedroom as long as the septic system employs an approved innovative technology to remove excess nitrogen.  This adjustment to the regulation gives flexibility to the owners of a home on a small lot, while still controlling the discharge of nitrogen from wastewater into the environment.

"In a recent issue of Cape Business (Cape Code Chamber of Commerce Annual Report, Sep/Oct 2007, Joseph Santangelo), a special report on the negative impacts of wastewater on the environment of Cape Cod states: 'If Cape Cod develops a reputation for degraded waters, the continuing waves of vacationers, second-home owners and retirees driving Cape Cod’s economy may go elsewhere.'  I would contend that there is no doubt that they will go elsewhere, especially if Orleans comes into the news as a town with some of the most polluted waters in the state.  As the water quality declines, property values will be driven down.  The townspeople have the opportunity now to do the right thing for the environment, to preserve the quality of life for the young people who will inherit this beautiful land and water, and to protect their property values.  The proposed Board of Health regulation is a small, but necessary, component in a comprehensive plan to treat wastewater and thereby protect the fragile environment of Orleans.”

Whatever happened to the Freshwater Ponds Report by the Cape Cod Commission?  Carolyn Kennedy,  Orleans Water Quality Task Force chair, reports that the committee carefully studied this report and made recommendations to the Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen on November 1, 2007.  Recommendations included changes to the freshwater pond monitoring protocols, improved stormwater runoff mitigation, and referral to several town boards and committees for further action.  The memo outlining OWQTF’s recommendations can be found on the OPC website. Click here.

The report is available at the Snow Library and on the Town's website.)

When did Orleans start using trees to mark the channel into Rock Harbor, and who first dubbed them “Clam Trees”?  The Osprey is stumped!  Harbormaster Dawson Farber says the practice long preceded him and does not know when it started.  Can anyone help answer this question?  Please send your answer to info@orleanspondcoalition.org and thanks!