FRIENDS OF SENGEKONTACKET, Inc.
Post Office Box 740
Edgartown MA 02539
508-627-6966
email: friends@sengekontacket.org
Report on Sengekontacket Pond Management Plan
September 21, 2007
There is an opportunity for the Town of Edgartown and the Town of Oak Bluffs to address in a systemic way two critical challenges related to Sengekontacket Pond: the immediate bacterial contamination and closure to shell fishing and the more long term trend of degraded water quality. A pond management plan is essential to address these crises. But alone this is insufficient. A joint pond management authority is needed to ensure cohesive and consistent implementation priorities as well as to ensure the long term sustainability of a health estuary – water, habitat and watershed.
Friends of Sengekontacket Inc. (FOS) has successfully worked with the County of Dukes County through the Barrier Beach Task Force to develop and implement a cohesive management plan for Joseph Sylvia State Beach. We have asked the leadership of the Towns of Edgartown and Oak Bluffs to work with FOS to create a shared approach and to establish a single authority to revitalize Sengekontacket Pond. The Martha’s Vineyard Water Alliance represents a collaborative group of stakeholders and interested parties that could provide information and analysis on many problems and potential solutions for the pond as well as assist in raising awareness among the general public.
The following summary describes our initial understanding of the complex issues and key stakeholders and suggests an outline of possible short and long term next steps for Sengekontacket Pond. FOS is prepared to meet with stakeholders to facilitate establishment of a joint task force bringing together those with authority, those with interest and those with skills and money to implement a recovery plan for Sengekontacket Pond.
I. The Immediate Crisis in Sengekontacket Pond is diminished water quality as evidenced by both bacterial and nitrogen levels well in excess of accepted norms. There is a dearth of consistent data on possible causes such as birds, acid rain, road runoff, fertilizer and septic system operation in individual homes in the watershed. The Massachusetts Estuaries Report on Sengekontacket is not due out until January 2008 and will focus primarily on the nitrogen budget for a healthy pond. There are limits on the authority of agencies and individuals to carry out independent actions (e.g. cormorant depredation is federally permitted only to landowners following approved testing and documentation of bird populations). The following table suggests a complex array of factors with potential interaction:
|
Factors that have Increased |
Factors that have Decreased |
|
Nitrogen |
Eelgrass |
|
E. Coli |
Scallops, clams |
|
Bird populations (geese, gulls, cormorants, including migratory) |
Undeveloped land |
|
Suburbanization (green lawns) |
Open space (meadows, fields) |
|
Algae/eutrophication |
Natural flushing/dredging |
|
Buildings & septic systems |
Wetlands |
|
Fertilizer |
Native plants |
|
Road runoff |
|
|
Water temperatures |
|
|
Human population & activity (kite surfing, boating) |
|
|
Road traffic |
|
|
Air temperatures |
|
II. There are many public, private and not-for-profit parties who are stakeholders of Sengekontacket Pond. Some have legal jurisdiction, some have legal authority to make changes, some have property rights, and some have an interest in recreation or commerce. Some have political and financial rights as taxpayers and/or voters. Based on maps provided by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, there are almost 30 individual parties owning parcels of land in excess of three (3) acres whose land abuts Sengekontacket Pond. Landowners include the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (over 100 acres), conservation organizations, golf clubs, and homeowner associations. The stakeholders are:
|
Public Agencies |
Not-for-Profit |
Special Interest |
|
Federal – Fish & Wildlife (Interior), Wildlife (USDA), Environmental Protection |
Friends of Sengekontacket, Inc. |
Property owners/Taxpayers |
|
State – Marine Fisheries, Waterways, Coastal Zone, Environment, Highway |
Mass Audubon/Felix Neck/Foundation |
Voters |
|
County |
Homeowner Associations (11) |
Fishers/anglers Boaters |
|
Towns – Selectmen, Conservation, Planning, Health, Shellfish Constable, Harbor, Dredging |
|
Rod & Gun Club |
|
Quasi – Martha’s Vineyard Commission |
|
Farm Neck Golf Club Edgartown Golf Club |
|
|
|
Chamber of Commerce |
|
|
|
Real Estate agencies |
|
|
|
Landscapers |
|
|
|
Renters |
III. The long term goal for the Pond must be resilience, the ability to withstand single traumatic events such as increased bacteria or an algae bloom and to recover quickly, not fail systemically. A long term management plan supported by complete and consistent data is key to anticipating events and implementing effective recovery strategies. Estuaries in other locations, on Cape Cod (Buzzards Bay, 7 Bays) and elsewhere, serve as examples for Sengekontacket with long term plans and management authorities. Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration outlines precepts that readily apply to creating a recovery plan for Sengekontacket Pond:
1. Restoration – requires stewardship, development of constituencies, science-based analysis and site-specific data.
2. Abatement of ecosystem threats – must address habitat, water quality and watershed
3. Elimination of degradation, Building resilience – happens with measurable criteria to demonstrate success, monitoring and adaptive management
4. Maintenance of public access – must be balanced against protection of resources.
IV. The next steps must be laid out over short (6 months), medium (1-2 years) and long term (3-10 years) phases to address problem(s), solution(s) and recognition of constraints. At a minimum the plan needs to include:
§ Continuous testing and reporting of test results
§ Advocacy and communication among stakeholders to reach consensus on priorities and application of resources
§ Identification of funding needs and sources
§ Consistent public policy on restoration, protection and use of the pond
§ Consolidated/coordinated authority for ongoing management of the pond.
The following table presents a draft approach to a long term recovery plan for Sengekontacket Pond:
|
Short Term (first 6 months) |
Medium Term (Month 7 – Year 2) |
Long Term (Year 3 – 5) |
|
PROBLEM |
||
|
· Closure · No shell fishing · Licenses sold but not usable · E.coli birds or human? · Nitrogen excess |
· Coordination/communication of state testing and closure with local authorities · Repeat summer closures · No shell fishing · E.coli birds or human? |
· No single authority to manage or fix problems · No single oversight agency · No common, consistent town policies on septic/runoff, conservation, planning or health |
|
SOLUTION |
||
|
· Testing for avian vs. human · Grants & private funding for DNA testing · Dredging · Recovery plan · MEP Report on Sengekontacket Pond |
· Watershed Planning advocate · Grants & private funding for advocate position · Forum for stakeholders · E.coli source reduction · Continued testing for sources and progress · Pond authority delegated from both towns and recognized by the state (Sengekontacket Task Force or Commission?) · Grants & private funding for commission, septic inventory and upgrades · Management plan |
· Low impact development policies implemented in both towns · Septic inventory and testing implemented in both towns |
|
CONSTRAINTS |
||
|
· Documenting the problem · DMF recognition of tests by “others” · Permits · Funding · Proving progress |
||