CTFishTalk.com: Shellfish, Nitrogen and Habitat Quality- Cape Cod Experience - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

IMEP #37
Shellfish, Nitrogen and Habitat Quality –
A Cape Cod Experience 1981
The Truth about Nitrogen Part 1

Different View About Nitrogen Pollution and Shellfishing. Climate and Energy Habitat Discussions with John Hammond and Cape Cod Shell Fishers (1981-1983)

Habitat Information For Fishers and Fishery Area Managers
Understanding Science Through History

(IMEP Habitat History Newsletters can be found indexed by date on The Blue Crab.Info™ website: Fishing, eeling and oystering thread) and Connecticut Fish Talk.com Salt Water Reports

Shellfish Restoration and Water Quality Project Shellfish Proposal EPA/DEP Habitat Restoration Initiative
Meeting November 18, 2009*

Tim Visel, Committee Member, HRI
The Sound School, New Haven, CT

In the early 1980’s, having the opportunity to work and witness the problems of the Hyannis Waste Water Treatment Plant mirrored to some extent, Old Saybrook, Connecticut, the problems of growth and development on the Cape. For those families that had long been residents, the “Cape” was changing. One of the noticeable changes was popular shell fishing areas were now closed and others were beginning eutrophication-- thought to be the impact of nitrogen enrichment of estuarine surface waters. With increased population came increased waste, and all the environmental problems associated with dense development of “sensitive coastal lands.” The same thing had occurred in Old Saybrook, CT with the closing of the Oyster River, a popular shellfishing spot for residents, (personal communication with Barbara Maynard, First Selectman, Old Saybrook 1982). Nothing could be more controversial than the vision of raw or partially treated sewage flowing into Lewis Bay, Hyannis; it seemed contrary as to what Cape Cod was all about. Instead many years before, a mechanical treatment plant similar to septic lagoons only on a much larger scale was constructed, wastes were allowed to dry or evaporate with huge infiltration beds. Suspicions expressed by local citizens centered on the long term impact upon the ground water from these septic lagoons. On hot summer nights the fumes from digestion systems spread for over a mile; that was my introduction to the Waste Water Planning Committee as a new University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service employee, (1981). Can something be done about the Hyannis Treatment Plant?

The Resource Harvesters Viewpoint – 1980s Cape Cod Shellfish and Finfishers
At one time, the fishing, shellfishing and boating industries were encouraged by the development of the Hyannis Sewage Treatment Plant, even the name had been changed to Pollution Control, giving those involved, the perception that pollution was being controlled, or at least minimized. I’m not going to comment on the public perception of the new name except that it did set the tone of some public meetings I attended on the Cape, but control did not necessarily mean reduce or eliminate, but merely the transfer of pollution from one area to another. The collection and movement of human waste was an 18th century concept created from massive water borne disease outbreaks, such as from cholera and typhoid linked to “open” street sewers and were then a direct public health response, not an environmental one. However the practice became associated with better public health policies and it was hoped that such effluent could be made cleaner- a passage from the Clean Water Act described the end goal of waste water treatment facilities someday as producing a “slightly fit to drink wash water.” Even the Clean Water Act didn’t really clean the water, but instead set a timetable and schedule for the “possible” cleaning of the water at a later date. But “A Clean Water Act” was better; it seemed to say then, “We hope to have three degrees of waste water treatment someday, that in the future (if built) may actually result in clean water.” You see my point?
Having to explain this to the New England boating industry who had vessels now covered in bacon grease (which sometimes required snow shovels to scrape it off), or shell fishermen who now had larger and permanent shellfish closures was not a pleasant task. The “system,” they felt, had failed them, and they wanted what they thought was promised: clean water and healthy environment habitats for fish and shellfish. They looked to the sewer plants to make that happen but I had my doubts. The National Sanitation Shellfish Program had permanent closures around such plants and that wasn’t clearly communicated to shellfishers. A new sewage treatment plant would result in a permanent shellfish closure zone surrounding the “outfall”. Although such plants were often promoted to reopen shellfish areas but some of the most productive shellfish areas would remain closed. I was dealing with that now in Old Saybrook back in Connecticut 1981-83. A 20th century response to an 18th century technology that was just impossible to deliver the anticipated result of all the shellfisheries, and I had to tell them that. The University of Massachusetts had the Cooperative Extension Service, a national program evolved from the previous century “Land Grant” colleges of agriculture (1914). Cooperative Extension’s mission basically was to bridge the gap between College of Agriculture University Research and the public. I worked for the Cape Cod Extension Service, stationed in Barnstable, Massachusetts in the Deeds & Probate Building. The position I held was “funded” by the government and was here to “help.” As a CRD (Community Resource Development) Cooperative Extension Agent, I was assigned the marine community from Boston, the Cape and islands to the Rhode Island border. One of my first tasks was to sit on an advisory committee for the Hyannis Treatment Plant.
COASTAL WATER POLLUTION
What was the basic problem? Two centuries ago, the widespread and often devastating outbreaks of disease attributed to “open” street sewer canals on the streets of major cities are thoroughly documented in the scientific literature. The smell of animal manure, garbage and buckets of human waste dumped in the street on hot summer days was the breeding ground for several diseases. The 1880 to 1920 period was especially hot in New England and people looked to shore communities for relief of the summer heat and the diseases of cities.
Many New England shore communities were built during this time period. A public outcry for “sanitary” sewers, those simply put underground, was at the time, the “sanitary” option of enhancing public health. Unsanitary sewers were above ground, stone or curb canals that caught `rain and dumped debris from commodes and bed pans. The installation of city “public” sewers greatly reduced public health hazards but did not eliminate or decrease pollution. They accomplished what they were designed to do, move waste from the streets and away from the densely populated cities. They were never pollution reducers but pollution movers of waste to receiving surface waters, often far outside the city “limits”. At the time, it was the acceptable practice for waters to receive wastes, a practice that was to continue to the 1970’s and beyond, with “discharge” permits. It was extremely difficult at the time to explain what had been proposed as a “solution” was little more than a more modern version of the past – dilution. Sewage treatment plants at that time were never equipped or designed to do full pollution abatement. They were designed to treat the sewage and minimize public health risks, that was all often with strong antibacterial agents such as chlorine, and would discharge the resulting waste stream into a watercourse also with fish and shellfish toxic impacts. That itself has its own ecological consequences. Many discharge streams overwhelmed natural flows and bodies of water with reduced flushing (tidal exchanges) were devastated by suspended solids and low oxygen, in other words they underwent purification in high heat with noxious fumes or “stinks.” In the 1890s, rotten egg smells were common. Black Mayonnaise deposits soon appeared on the Cape in the late 1970s suffocating shellfish habitats. The Hyannis Plant was dealing with the same organic sludge which as the heat increased made in current stream oxygen levels even lower. Sludge activation pools especially as cold temperatures reduced bacterial (with oxygen) breakdown of organic wastes was also slow and in summer needed constant aeration in hot weather; it was explained that was critical to avoid the “sulfur cycle” we had that explained many times by the plant operating staff. The sulfur cycle, it was explained, killed off the “good” bacteria, and on hot days they had to run the aerators 24/7 which put aerosols and fumes into neighborhoods. On hot nights the smells from the lagoons was so strong it often precluded outdoor events (personal observations – Tim Visel).
What compounded the problem was that the Hyannis plant was way over capacity, and outside digestion/evaporation pools were very close to residential neighborhoods. The methane fumes from aerobic digestion were at the time with certain winds-- “breathtaking” and at night sulfur smells. I was witness to these events first hand. It just couldn’t handle the volume and sand infiltration beds were over taxed. What started as a “way” to have soil treatment of wastes was being overwhelmed especially in the colder months. Sand beds had to be cleaned, changed and reconditioned. The staff at the facility was doing everything they could at the time.
A crucial meeting about the plant was scheduled a few days after a September 13th, 1982 in a New York Times article that detailed how sewage treatment plants can now apply for a 30-year EPA waiver from the Clean Water Act. Fishermen and boaters were angry with what they saw as a retreat from clean water, and they also were the ones who “lost the war.” They had every reason to feel that way. In Lewis Bay, foam was now prevalent along the shore. Rough waters agitated soap film that could produce semi-sweet aerosols; on windy days it looked like Mr. Bubble Bath™. The bottom had changed also, where sand had been, now a brown deposit of sludge-like material formed a slurry that drifted with the tides. Underneath this, nearly two feet of this organic oatmeal, as fishermen described it, the hard-shell clams –quahogs-- were all dead. A quick bull rake sample showed shell paired but black dead shells and there were concerns that bottoms were turning soft and mucky. The smelly sulfur or match stink odor was frequently now described as “dead” bottoms for the shellfish. It certainly appeared that way after bull rake samples came aboard.
In fact, the shell fishermen’s group in Bourne saw current industry hydraulic soft shellfishing harvesting equipment as a potential “snow blower” restoration device to move this organic debris (Black Mayonnaise) off productive shellfish areas that have been killed by organic suffocation. They sponsored several demonstrations to demonstrate this “cultivation” cleaning aspect and wrote a report detailing it in March 20th, 1981, on page 9 is found the following passage, referring to earlier Cape Cod research, Dr. David Belding (1920), “We also have encountered certain spots where this dying process is complete. These areas contained a great many empty shells (soft shell) and a high incidence of dead or dying clams. When the clam rake manifold (hydraulic) was rolled across the bottom, gases formed from the decaying matter were observed bubbling to the surface. The substrate was devoid of the usual animal life, such as sea worms and the winkles.” Shell fishermen saw hydraulic cultivation equipment as a way to mitigate excess organics and a lower marine soil pH from the result of organic loading. It was different type of aeration equipment from the Hyannis plant but key to preventing the same deadly sulfur cycle. They were proposing to prevent the same sulfur cycle that threatened the lagoons bacteria treatment filter systems. Working the bottom in the hopes of restoring previous habitat values for shellfish and finfish. They were dealing with “the same issue” of nitrogen/sulfide in a much larger system and were proposing equipment and technology solutions to what they felt was a huge habitat loss. They were correct, the same sulfur cycle that was killing clams was killing the good bacteria in the Hyannis treatment plant lagoons. Climate and pollution were turning habitat quality into a new area of research far larger than anyone could imagine at the time. Unknown by me at the time but suspected long Cape Cod shellfishers, the climate had turned against them. They were correct in their suspicions. In Connecticut, at the same time, we were seeing huge increases in flounder fin rot, once rare here, but increasingly prevalent as sandy bottoms became thick organic deposits “sinks” for this organic material termed black mayonnaise. Reports started to arrive of relatively similar accumulations of nutrient enriched material in Barnstable – Centerville River, muck in estuaries once shellfish harvesting waters failed to meet health department requirements. Others urged studies to document a shellfish history, believing formerly productive beds could still be found beneath this organic buildup in Lewis Bay. At one point the use of hydraulic dredge vacuums, Mud Cat TM was suggested to remove several feet of organic material from the old natural oyster bed in the Centerville River. This often became a focal part of shell fishermen meetings in the Barnstable restaurant called the Marlin Restaurant owned by the Montagna family.
Groundwater Pollution
A difference of opinion occurred on the Hyannis Plant Advisory Committee also; options included obtaining public drinking supplies from surface water versus utilization of wells. The concern was that continued use of the sand/filter lagoons/pools would contaminate the nearby groundwater. Water companies long utilized surface water bodies for drinking water sources. In Connecticut, they often retained vast acreages - watersheds, to protect (buffer) the public drinking supply from the negative impacts of development, high bacterial surface water, runoff, salt, hydrocarbons from road travel, pet waste and siltation from poor soil erosion control practices. As the margins of these watersheds became highly developed such as these on the Cape, the environmental impacts could be felt, now in hot summers including for the first time, the appearance of large amounts of nitrogen enhanced algae in the salt ponds and bays. Some regional Connecticut water companies needed to install filtration and chlorination facilities as bacteria and microscopic animal life levels continued to rise. In areas that sustained rapid growth, such as the Connecticut shoreline, deep-water wells were installed and lowered adjacent water tables [such as those on the lower Hammonasset River watershed in Connecticut– next to the Hammonasset River in Clinton and Madison. In the 1980’s, so much water was pumped from this groundwater aquifer that for a few days, the Hammonasset River did not meet flow requirements and dried up. A member then of the Clinton Shellfish Commission, called me to his River Road, Clinton, CT home to show me that the Hammonasset River had dried up at several bends. A quick phone call to Connecticut Water Company resulted in the high capacity wells off River Road being shut down. Within 8 hours a modest flow returned]. That is when the first serious salt water intrusion was felt on the Cape during a long dry period. Continuous pumping of well water can draw groundwater to it as the pressure gradient increases. Groundwater containing salt could over time be drawn landward, ruining the water table for drinking. This had been known for a long time.
This is an excerpt from a Navy Department Publication, (Bureau of Yards and Docks Design Data Service-For Official Use Only, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1943).
“…Wells located near salt water are subject to contamination from that source depending upon the character of the geologic formation, distance from the sea, and the level to which the ground water is lowered. In limestone formations, fissures, and caverns can permit the direct entrance of sea water. In sandstone and deposits of sand and gravel, intrusion of sea water, while not as immediately evident, is equally certain if the draft on formations, the fresh water normally occurs as a dome-shaped lens floating on the salt water, the hydrostatic head of the fresh water counterbalancing the head of the underlying salt water. If the draw-down be such that the fresh water is removed faster than the contributory area can supply it, salt water will tend to flow inland and upward to the well, causing a contamination which may necessitate the abandonment of the well. Any increase in the chloride content of water from a well near the sea may generally be considered evidence of over pumping.”
This process could in theory be reversed by “recharging” the fresh water lens and restoring the “natural” water table. All the estimates were in years, then so no quick solution was seen for wells that had already gone salty. Those on the committee came to realize that for many areas on the Cape with sandy soils and shallow fresh water aquifers, those communities could never rely upon deep water wells without risk of salt water intrusion. If additional quantities of fresh water (although now mixed as sewage) were sent to the Hyannis Plant, what would be the impact on the freshwater aquifer? Letters to the editors of Cape Cod newspapers had shell fishermen questioning the impact and continued use of nitrogen fertilizers on Cape Cod. On hot summer days, the pungent odor of the Hyannis Treatment Plant evaporation pools loomed over parts of Hyannis. People wanted answers to questions and concerns about the odors. And as it got warmer the plant staff had to run the aerators at nighttime also increasing the fumes into the neighborhoods (personal inspections and observations, T. Visel 1981-1982). A public policy crisis loomed on the Cape and the public demanding answers to a growing nitrogen question.
Differences in Groundwater – Connecticut / Cape Cod Mass
What became apparent is that all groundwater is not the same. Those found in bedrock, glacial till or sandy soil had different characteristics. There was a corresponding difference in water tables also. While the usual accepted ratios of 30 inches of rainfall contributing less than one inch to the water table height (most was lost to the water table by runoff and evaporation) on the Cape it was much higher; 30 inches could yield up to 5 inches to the water table. Soils high in clay had different water table heights than soils consisting of sand from capillary action. The mostly sandy or sand containing soils did have an impact upon small lots being able to treat residential sewage. On sandy lots, wastewater could flow very quickly into the groundwater table. The rainwater percolated so quickly into the sand; that the water table was much closer to the surface than glacial till over bedrock, something prevalent in Connecticut. The Cape itself after all, was very close to the sea level water table. I would witness this impact on two occasions, a residential house lot “percolation test” and a visit to a strawberry farm in Dennis, Mass. One morning included a residential development lot percolation test (commonly called the “perc test” by developers). A pipe or similar container is placed deep into the ground with holes. Water is poured in and allowed to seep into the soil within established guidelines for time. This is an effective way to determine if the soil can accommodate a residential septic and sewage leaching fields. The problem was as quickly as the water was poured, it ran out into the soil, so in actual fact, the perc test couldn’t be done because the soil was so porous! The afternoon included a small vegetable farm visit and a field of mature strawberry producing plants. The grower suspected the Aquifer was turning saline. The grower had to turn off wells and now had to truck in irrigation water. The soil was very sandy, and quite dry from a long dry spell. The “complaint” phoned into the Cape Cod Extension Service regarded “water” so I was called. The problem it seemed was that the long dry spell had lowered the water table because the strawberry irrigation system was on almost constantly. The owner/operator complained that the soil would begin to dry almost immediately after the irrigation system was shut off, but now the well had gone “dry” from the constant use. What had happened was the farm was slightly higher than surrounding areas and had tapped the top of the water table, and the soil being so sandy, the gradient or flow to replace the water loss could not keep up during the dry spell. Most of the field’s water table was locked up in the soil itself or had evaporated and the well had run dry- a draught. What was so alarming was salt crystals were beginning to form on strawberry plants, a sign I agreed signaled a more salty flow. This gradient flow however, could be a two way street, constant fresh water use, could in fact, reverse the movement of groundwater and bringing saline water into the freshwater lens or reverse the process when the period of draught lessened and heavy rainfall returned. On the other hand, the introduction of septic wastewater could also quickly enter the water table. This permeability of the soils in Dennis was well known. A manuscript reprinted for the Cape Cod Planning & Economic Development Commission, Norman Cook, Director, in 1971 detailed the problem. In the publication compiled by James F. Lentowski and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture and titled An Inventory and Interpretation – Selected Resources of the Town of Dennis, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Page 14-15.
“Merrimac Series. These soils are somewhat excessively drained. Sandy loam surface and subsoil layers are underlain by stratified sand and gravel at 18 to 30 inches. In places the surface soil and the upper few inches of the subsoil are fine sandy loams grading to coarser textured materials. The surface and subsoil layers are very friable and are moderately to rapidly permeable. Permeability in the substrata is very rapid.
In addition the excessive drainage can raise havoc with sewerage disposal systems. When leaching fields are located near the edge of an embankment there exists a possibility of effluent from the system discharging through the toe of the bank. Extreme caution is urged in the placement of such uses.”
Although everyone understood that you wouldn’t put a drinking well in the middle of a septic leaching field, the concept of drawing saline waters hundreds to thousands of feet inland by creating a pressure gradient was at times difficult to explain, you just could not see the problem until it was too late, although much concern had occurred in Falmouth when a public well near Otis Air Base had now started to show contamination (1981). We had learned that groundwater contamination could move thousands of feet over time. That information sent a chill through those serving on the Hyannis Plant Planning Committee.
Installing deep-water artesian wells on near shore properties was out of the question. Many homes with concrete basements had already salt water problems at high tide – you can see the salt interact with the concrete – a reason several Chatham Mass residents said previous beach cottages were built over the beach with no foundation, everyone knew salt water was in the ground, not far underneath them.
That also impacted how near coastal septic treatment fields were designed. The flow was sometimes so rapid, the natural cleansing filter capacity of the soil itself was “short circuited;” it flowed too quickly to be effective. One property was so sandy the time it took for water entering the wetland was much sooner than expected. So-called travel time (in Connecticut the travel time is presently 21 days); at one point even dye testing was considered! One suggestion was to install clay into the soil to slow the travel time down so vegetation would have a chance to absorb the water and of course the nitrogen. This was opposite the current practice of river gravel or crushed gravel for leaching fields.
Three important issues emerged out of discussions about freshwater drinking, residential septic systems and replacing water to the freshwater “lens” above the salt-water aquifer; first, there was a residential impact zone, a proximity to the tidal water course. We came to realize it was about 1,000 feet.
Second, separating sewage water from groundwater was important at least half mile from any water course as to prevent groundwater impacting poorly flushed tidal areas. Third, we recommended to prevent and discourage deepwater high capacity wells above salt water aquifers for one-half to one mile from the coasts. Everyone agreed that much more research was needed to investigate ways to slow runoff of clean relatively uncontaminated freshwater so as to recharge or restore the water table. Although nitrogen is associated with residential septic waste in summer, some uptake or use (called attenuation today) was by trees, lawns and shrubs. In winter was a different matter; vegetation entered a dormant state, it was colder and seawater had more oxygen so Black Mayonnaise deposits appeared to “melt away.” Storms also had a role in removing this compost from shellfish habitats. Cold water contains more oxygen so bacteria was able to break down this organic compost – which consisted of leaves.
GROUNDWATER ISSUES FOR THE COAST
One of the ideas that came out of the 1982 Hyannis Sewage Treatment Plant study was “Bermuda Cisterns”, the old-fashioned water barrel at the terminus of residential roof downspouts. Often roof water was channeled to a paved driveway or other semi impervious surface and ended up in the street drains. That water relatively free of contaminants was lost to the fresh water aquifer. At that time, road construction treated surface water under “the common enemy doctrine” that water was the enemy of safe travel and road design quickly removed it and with pipes delivered it into a wetland or stream*. The retention rate of wetland was so much greater than storm drain runoff and we looked at what individual home owners could do on their own property; two uses came to dominate much of the discussion: roof water to be re-charged into the fresh water lens aquifer and the use of vegetation to remove nitrogen contaminated septic water from it. One of the factors raised by shell fishermen was the increase of nitrogen and nitrogen enhanced plant growth in coves and bays. This was quite noticeable in the summer heat as warm water growths changed habitat conditions in many rivers at this time. Some areas however almost devoid of leaves showed the same Black Mayonnaise deposits and those with restricted flushing had the thickest deposits.
Soon, everyone came to realize that the Cape Cod groundwater resource was being asked to perform two very different tasks at once, treat wastewater from septic systems while at the same time provide good clean drinking water. After several meetings / discussions, we started to think about how to keep these uses separate, keep the domestic wastewater close to the surface and apart from the groundwater. It became a practical development issue as the Cape had no nearby mountainous region that could deliver good clean drinking water at a reasonable cost. This was something that I was used to in Connecticut higher upland sources (reservoirs) or those hard to miss water tanks at high points along the Connecticut shore. Connecticut had during its previous warm period brought “city water” to several shore areas as shallow wells became salty in the 1900s.
To prevent subsoil sewage from entering the groundwater zones of separation between septic systems and the groundwater table were often pursued on the regulatory side. For those working in the marine field and its natural fish and shell fisheries in the 1970s early emphasis appeared to be utilizing the surface waters for sewage effluent instead of going into the groundwater. That trade off was apparent to me, with the construction of wastewater treatment plants surface water quality was “sacrificed” along with fish and shellfish habitats with the outfall. Although treatment was often highly variable, many sewage treatment plants often served only as collection points for chlorination screening and emulsifying waste. The early public term of sewer plants was pretty much right on, a plant to handle all the sewage and often little more*. In the 1940’s, chlorine had been added to the effluent stream to compensate during heavy loads and seasonal swimming to reduce live bacteria, (RJ Visel Domestic and Industrial Water Purification and Treatment 1947- Pg 1 – 41). Connecticut had gone to all year chlorination in1967.
Some of the most conflicting issues looking back are that since the Clean Water Act nearly all of coastal fish and shellfish resources had declined, contrary to the hope of those involved in the early day of primary, secondary and anticipated tertiary treatment. Once plants were built, such as the one in Hyannis, they often became overwhelmed – way beyond plant designed capacity (some 100%)! With outfalls from STPs, the shellfish areas were permanently closed within an FDA determined “tidal time” distance from the outfall, as the plant could fail out any time etc. To those who were looking at inshore fisheries, what became hundreds of problems scattered within a given watershed, now became one large often-devastating problem, with periodic failures that closed beaches and fouled the water with organic waste, especially during and after heavy rains. The shellfisheries near these plants would be forever lost, from bacteria in closures or organic sludge. One of the towns to experience this was Branford, CT and has been the subject of multiple violations, judgments and fines. Even today we are still trying to determine the full impact of chlorination upon several species such as smelt and bay scallops. Connecticut, for example, had very large smelt runs, right into the 1960’s until year round chlorination commenced immediately following all year chlorination, several productive smelt runs failed, especially those in Greenwich, Connecticut. It is now thought that smelt once a substantial fishery here, is now extinct from our waters. Later studies indicated warming temperatures provided a stressing condition that increased the sensitivity of chlorine residues and fluctuations in water pH.
To thoroughly treat (remove bacteria) wastewater two abatement issues emerged: the opportunity to increase evaporation by greenery, (vegetation) and maximize the treatment capacity of the soil itself. On the Cape, the soils were sandy and would transfer the wastewater quickly into the ground water. Although residential water use had dramatically increased, lot size hadn’t and the carrying capacity of the soils to handle the effluent hadn’t. Several ideas were discussed to increase the soils ability to handle waste, we came down to three, reduce the water usage or conservation, separate gray water from sewage and finally maximize the evaporative/transpiration capacity on small lots. For decades, towns in Connecticut operated septic lagoons, clay-lined pits in which residential septic tank effluent was emptied. Evaporation processes reduced the liquid to a semi-solid composition. Lagoons were periodically left to dry out and compost waste remaining was scraped out. But the location and design of such large septic lagoons on the Cape became controversial and opposed as land became very valuable. Much effort went into these studies three decades ago and on the Cape, a sense of urgency was evident as the Cape was experiencing a dry spell verging on a drought. How the Cape solved this waste and drinking water dilemma would link fisheries habitat and water quality and in profound way few planners understood at the time, including me.
The sulfur cycle the one that worried the Hyannis Treatment Plant operators so much would now influence coastal habitats that supported shellfish and finfish species along New England’s Coastlines. It was getting warmer and the Sulfur/Sapropel cycle was strengthening as ammonia levels rose in poorly flushed bays and coves. Brown algae were becoming more prevalent. A massive habitat transition was occurring in New England and the shellfishers were the first ones to report it.
Report 1 in a series of 5.
I respond to all emails at tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us
Program reports are available upon request.
For more information about New Haven Environmental Monitoring Initiative or for reports please contact Susan Weber, Sound School Adult Education and Outreach Program Coordinator at susan.weber@new-haven.k12.ct.us
The Sound School is a Regional High School Agriculture Science and Technology Center enrolling students from 23 participating Connecticut communities.