Martha’s Vineyard seeks ways to curb nitrogen

State regulations proposed for septic system and watershed permit changes.

3
Mill Pond in West Tisbury. — MV Times

Proposed septic system and watershed regulations that could cost some Cape Cod property owners thousands of dollars aren’t expected to have that same impact on the Island.

At a Martha’s Vineyard Commission Water Alliance meeting last week, water resource planner Sheri Caseau introduced the proposed regulations through a recorded presentation, and then led a discussion by Island stakeholders. The proposed regulation changes include septic systems, otherwise known as “Title 5,” and watershed permits.

The new regulations will be the topic of upcoming virtual public hearings at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on Tuesday, Jan. 24, at 6 pm and on Wednesday, Jan. 25, at 6 pm. Information sessions are planned for Tuesday, Jan. 17, at 6 pm (remote) and Wednesday, Jan. 18, at 6 pm (hybrid), and participation instructions will be available on the MassDEP website.

Caseau shared a recorded presentation of the first public information session held by MassDEP about nitrogen-sensitive areas and the watershed permit, which is available at https://bit.ly/3HIlaiJ.

MassDEP’s summary of proposed regulatory changes gave an explanation of its plans. 

“MassDEP is proposing to amend the Title 5 regulations to enhance protection of embayments and estuaries — particularly on Cape Cod, the Islands, and Southeastern Massachusetts — from eutrophication caused by nitrogen pollution originating in many locations primarily from wastewater. This is complemented by the proposed promulgation of new regulations at 314 CMR 21.00 to provide a watershed permitting approach to control nitrogen and other pollutants from entering the embayments and estuaries,” the document states. 

The new septic systems regulations proposed would establish “nitrogen-sensitive areas” for “watersheds adversely impacted by nitrogen.” Septic systems in these areas would be required to “upgrade to the best available nitrogen-reducing technology within five years of designation, unless the community in which the septic system is located obtains a watershed permit for the watershed or files a notice of intent for a watershed permit.” Meanwhile the watershed permit regulation change proposes “to provide a 20-year permit for communities to implement long-term wastewater planning in the most efficient and effective way for the entire watershed. Permittees will be authorized to take a holistic, long-term, innovative approach to reducing the nitrogen load that enters the estuaries and embayments.”

West Tisbury health agent Omar Johnson described this as “a project of great magnitude.” 

“When I first heard about it … in all honesty, I felt the weight on me,” Johnson said. Johnson told those present that he concluded this task could not be accomplished on his own. Additionally, West Tisbury may need to apply for a watershed permit and “be allowed 20 years to get this thing together.” 

Johnson considered employing an environmental consultant, but Martha’s Vineyard Commission executive director Adam Turner assured him there would be enough support on the Island. 

Turner had gone to some of the previous meetings, and he said, “These rules and regulations are really directed at the Cape.”

“The first thing we needed to do is separate ourselves from the Cape, and I think we did. Our stuff is not mandatory,” Turner said. 

Although negotiations will be needed to see how Island towns want to deal with the process, Turner said work is underway to meet MassDEP requirements, such as establishing watershed management plans. 

“We’re really going to have to develop … our own restructuring and our own resources,” Turner said, adding that Martha’s Vineyard has the tools and funds necessary to implement these plans. For comparison, Turner said Mashpee is looking for $60 million, while the Vineyard is looking for $2 million to $3 million. 

Rachel Sorrentino, who has been working with the commission on nitrogen management, said she and Caseau have been trimming down a list of possible methods that would be appropriate for the Island. “We will have, by the end of the year, a draft of the solutions and a good sense of what those solutions might be, how much nitrogen they will take out or manage, and how much that is likely to cost,” Sorrentino said. 

John Schrelis of West Tisbury asked whether there have been any phosphorus-mitigating methods Cape Cod towns used or are looking at implementing that would be applicable to Martha’s Vineyard. Sorrentino said phosphorus is being looked into alongside nitrogen management. 

Turner said, “We have been very vocal that we thought Title 5 was inaccurate.”

“They haven’t really done a whole lot with nitrogen anyways. It isn’t like they have been all over this, DEP. They got into it because they were part of a lawsuit,” Turner added. “But it’s been 50 years since they did, and the technology has changed, although Title 5 technology has got to be the slowest that I’ve seen that still operates fairly consistently the way it always did.”

MassDEP does seem to recognize the need to financially support smaller communities for nitrogen-mitigating projects, according to Turner. But, Turner said, alternative ways were developed for places like the Vineyard. 

“I think they’re willing to let us try many different alternatives. We just have to have a Plan B, Plan C. If these alternatives don’t work, then we have to go to more stringent methods,” Caseau said.

3 COMMENTS

  1. I just had my septic tanks emptied and it cost over $2100 for two 1500 gallon tanks. Maybe making regular tank maintenance/emptying more affordable would help incentivize people to get their tanks emptied much re regularly.

  2. The obvious answer is to expand the sewer system in VH and OB but that is too logical of idea. All the people complaining about housing shortages will certainly be against this option – the option that makes the housing supply easier to increase on the island.

Comments are closed.