Search

Mitigating non‐point source nitrogen in coastal estuaries is economically, environmentally, logistically, and socially challenging. On Cape Cod, Massachusetts, nitrogen management includes both traditional, centralized wastewater treatment and sewering as well as a number of alternative technologies. We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 37 participants from governmental and non‐governmental organizations as well as related industries to identify the barriers and opportunities for the use of alternative technologies to mitigate nitrogen pollution. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then analyzed using content analysis and rhetorical analysis. Cost and technical capacity to reduce nitrogen were the most discussed considerations. Beyond those, there were a slew of additional considerations that also impacted whether a technology would be installed, permitted, and socially accepted. These included: maintenance and monitoring logistics, comparisons to sewering, co‐benefits, risk/uncertainty, community culture, extent of public engagement, permitting/regulatory challenges, and siting considerations. The insights about these additional considerations are valuable for transferring to other coastal areas managing nutrient impairments that may have not yet factored in these considerations when making decisions about how to meet water quality goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policies and regulations designed to address nutrient pollution in coastal waters are often complicated by delays in environmental and social systems. Social and political inertia may delay the implementation of cleanup projects, and even after the best nutrient pollution management practices are developed and implemented, long groundwater travel times may delay the impact of inland or upstream interventions. These delays and the varying costs of nutrient removal alternatives used to meet water quality goals combine to create a complex dynamic decision problem with tradeoffs about when, where, and how to intervene. We use multi‐objective optimization to quantify the tradeoffs between costs and minimizing the time to meet in‐bay nutrient reduction goals represented as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). We calculate the impact of using in‐bay (in situ) nutrient removal through shellfish aquaculture relative to waiting for traditional source control to be implemented. We apply these methods to the Three Bays Watershed in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. In gross benefit terms, not accounting for any social costs, this equates to an average value of 37¢ (2035 TMDL target date) and 11¢ (2060 TMDL target date) per animal harvested over the plan implementation period. Our results encourage the consideration of alternative and in situ approaches to tackle coastal pollution while traditional source control is implemented and its effects realized over time. Research Impact Statement: Shellfish are worth between 11‐37¢ per animal harvested when compared to traditional approaches to dealing with nutrient pollution on Cape Cod, MA, USA. The timing of the pollution cleanup matters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article announces the 2014 New England Water Environment Association (NEWEA) student poster board display winners including Nathaniel H. Merrill and Yuqi Wang.