Power lines and trees cohabit at the Salt Pond Areas nature preserve off the bikepath

Across the Cape, residents are saying “nay to the spray.”

Since last spring, when the electric utility company NStar agreed to a yearlong moratorium on spraying herbicides under Cape Cod power lines, citizens have been quietly preparing to make that moratorium permanent.

Over the last month, boards of selectmen in nine towns from Wellfleet to Barnstable adopted a nonbinding resolution, drafted by the Eastham town administrator, calling on NStar to use chemical-free methods of controlling vegetation under public rights-of-way.

Now, Upper Cape selectmen are being asked to join the resolution, as part of an initiative coordinated by Green Cape Alliance for Pesticide Education (CAPE), a nonprofit group based in Barnstable.

Earlier this month, East Falmouth resident Janet M. Kluever started circulating a petition around her neighborhood and the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Falmouth.

Once she had 50 signatures, last week Kluever brought the petition and a letter requesting a hearing before Falmouth selectmen.

“We don’t need any more chemicals in the groundwater,” said Kluever, who said she learned her lesson about the importance of protecting groundwater after a plume from the Massachusetts Military Reservation contaminated her drinking well.

Though the resolution is nonbinding, she said it could pressure NStar to listen to citizens who are concerned about the potential for herbicides to leach into the Cape’s sole-source aquifer, with possibly damaging effects on public health and the environment.

With the moratorium on NStar’s herbicide use set to expire on January 1, 2011, Kluever knows that the clock is ticking to get the board of selectmen to hear her case for supporting the resolution.

According to Brent V.W. Putnam, chairman of the Falmouth board of selectmen, the issue should be taken up at the selectmen’s meeting on December 20.

Susan Phelan, director of GreenCAPE, defined the resolution as “just a statement, a request.” It would not require towns to change any regulations or pay any money, or even ban the use of pesticides, she said. Instead, the resolution would encourage NStar to return to a vegetation management strategy it used prior to 2004.

“We’re requesting NStar to abandon its chemical plan and return to selective cutting and mowing. They’ve done that before. They know how to do it,” Phelan said.

Vegetation and power lines do not mix

By law, NStar is required to clear the rights-of-way under the power lines in order to safeguard the electric grid.

The utility’s five-year integrated vegetation management plan, typically submitted to each town’s conservation department, states that any plant with an ability to grow 12 feet or higher will be targeted for removal, alternating between mowing and herbicide applications.

• In Falmouth, vegetation that is not within certain distance of a body of water or drinking water supply will be sprayed by a licensed applicator with a mixture of herbicides, surfactants, and wind drift retardants, according to the management plan for that town, valid from 2008 to 2012.
• For low-foliage application, the herbicides include Accord, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate; fosamine ammonium, known commercially as Krenite; metsulfuron-methyl, sold as Escort XP; and imazapyr, better known as Arsenal.

According to NStar spokesman Michael P. Durand, these herbicides are approved for application in sensitive areas by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR).

“This integrated vegetation management approach is widely recognized around the country as the best way to ensure reliable energy delivery while at the same time promoting the growth of beneficial native plants,” he said.

Asked whether using herbicides is less expensive for the company than mechanical removal, Durand said that herbicides require less frequent application than cutting and mowing.

“Will that lead to a reduced cost for right-of-way maintenance? Likely. That’s a benefit to everybody,” he said.

“If we can do this in an environmentally friendly way and reduce the cost to our customers, it’s a win-win [situation],” he said.

An infinite moratorium?

In April, NStar agreed to a 12-month moratorium at the urging of MDAR and the Cape Cod Commission. The commission spent the rest of the year incorporating GIS information into maps of rights-of-way where NStar has easements, to include sensitive ecological areas, open bodies of water, and drinking water supplies.

Phelan said this initiative is “inadequate” to protect the Cape’s drinking water supplies.

“We should always have mapping in place, but for contaminants we’re not aware of. Here, we can proactively remove these chemicals to begin with by simply not spraying,” she said.

Acknowledging that municipalities cannot ban pesticides considered legal by the state or federal government, Phelan said that towns and citizens still have the right to decide how and where those chemicals are used. All too often, she said, town departments sign off on the utility’s plans without considering the potential impacts.

“When push comes to shove, they’re approving these plans and justifying their approval. Last year, they just signed off without reading them,” she said.

“It goes all the way to the federal government, which registers the herbicides in the first place without complete information about their health effects, then it comes down to state and local agencies.”

Mowing the ‘preferred method’

In a best-case scenario, Phelan said NStar would take the approach used by Boston Edison, the previous electric utility serving Cape Cod, which she said exclusively used mechanical methods to remove vegetation.

Northeast Utilities, a Connecticut-based company that announced a pending merger with NStar in October, also allows communities and property owners to “opt out” of herbicide applications, Phelan said.

“It’s time for NStar to reconsider their stance on this,” she said.

Durand said NStar is currently working out a compromise with the Cape Cod Commission, GreenCAPE, and state authorities, and will submit its yearly operational plans to each town this winter. He said herbicide applications will not take place before the leaves come out in the spring.

Upper Cape response

Two weeks ago, the Sandwich Board of Selectmen considered the resolution at a hearing, but delayed voting on the matter until December 16 in order to determine whether the board has the authority to ban the use of herbicides.

Mashpee Water District Operations Manager Andrew G. Marks said this week he disapproves of herbicide use on the NStar right-of-way because it is too close to the district’s six public wells.

“We don’t think that spraying in an area under the influence of a public water supply is a good idea at all,” Mr. Marks said, explaining that the power lines are in a “zone two,” in relation to the wells, a designation that indicates pollution can more easily reach a water supply than if it is outside that zone.

NStar would treat with herbicides its 2.5-mile right-of-way in Mashpee in 2013 at the earliest, according to Durand. A 1982 Mashpee Board of Health bylaw forbade the use of herbicides to clear rights-of-way, but local rules like this do not apply to the company, which follows state standards, Mr. Durand said.

An NStar representative was supposed to speak to the Mashpee Conservation Commission next Thursday to explain the company’s brush clearing techniques, but the meeting has been postponed and no new date has been scheduled.

The NStar herbicide program to clear vegetation under transmission lines has brought a hidden expense behind our power supply to the fore. Chemicals are being sprayed– literally– in our backyards, from Bourne to Falmouth to Eastham. Towns are scrambling to complete GIS mapping of drinking water supplies and sensitive habitat in areas under these public rights-of-way– but time is running out.

Mutterings of discontent about NStar’s herbicide program erupted into a roar loud enough to reach US Rep. Delahunt in late March. But will NStar listen?

Power lines and trees cohabit at the Salt Pond Areas nature preserve off the bikepath

A powerful year…

For those who have not been following developments with NStar since the story broke last year, here’s a quick recap of events:

• In 2004, NStar embarked on a program to treat vegetation under utility lines with a mixture of herbicides. They have been using herbicides since 1984, but switched from mowing to spraying in Falmouth at this point.
• The utility company has a 5-year management plan, which it updates annually with detail about where it plans to spray, hand-prune, or touch up. This “yearly operational plan” (or YOP) is sent to towns each year, giving them 45 days to make comments.
• In summer 2009, Eastham residents called for a ban on the spraying of herbicides. Lower Cape residents volunteer to cut the vegetation themselves. Hearings with NStar reps lead to a temporary moratorium on spraying.
• January 2010: the Cape Cod Commission seeks a Cape-wide moratorium on herbicide use on rights-of-way, pending further study and better mapping of drinking water supplies and sensitive habitat.
• March 2010: Almost every Cape town sends a letter to the Department of Agricultural Resources in support of the Commission’s moratorium.  (Sandwich and Bourne do not; Mashpee has a 1982 ban on herbicide use; and Provincetown does not have any rights of way used by NStar.)
• March 26, 2010:  DAR approves a 30-day extension of the public comment period on NStar’s YOP.
• March 30, 2010: US Representative Bill Delahunt calls on the head of EPA to get more involved in regulating herbicides used by public utilities under transmission lines.

Paying the piper

It strikes me as odd that residents, otherwise known as customers, pay NStar to supply electricity, but are virtually ignored when they question the methods the company uses to safeguard the transmission lines.

NStar’s stated reason for using herbicides is that they are more effective than mechanical methods to ensure vegetation doesn’t interfere with the power supply. Company representatives cite federal law and national security, conjuring up the spectre of the 2003 blackout that swept the Northeast (allegedly caused by a fallen tree branch in Ohio).

But what about the effects of herbicides, some of which have been shown to have serious, adverse health effects?

He said, she said

NStar says the chemicals have been approved for sensitive areas by the EPA. It’s true. But some of the studies they cite in their operational plan are from the 1970′s. Some of the references cited by the DAR (the agency responsible for oversight) come from Monsanto company memos.

Concerned residents and the anti-pesticide group GreenCAPE question these studies, which test the active ingredient, but not the carrier agents in each product.  Further, the studies do not evaluate the effects of pesticides sprayed in combination with each other and with surfacants and wind retardants. They charge that the chemicals were not studied on the Cape, which has unique sandy, clay-filled soil and plenty of sensitive habitat.

NStar also says that the amounts of herbicide they plan spray over a large area are so minute that they really do not warrant concern.  Members of the Falmouth Board of Health (who shall remain nameless) have said they routinely spray larger quantities on their own lawns.

It’s a shame that our cultural obsession with trim green lawns comes second to our concern for environmental well-being. If the market is king, even those who limit their use of chemicals are susceptible to choices their neighbors decide to make.  But on a municipal level, because pesticides are cheap, easy to use, and don’t kill birds the way DDT did, does it mean we have to use them?

Ignorance is not bliss

Most people tend to think that anything the government approves is safe, because they have spent the money to study it and have developed regulations to protect us. But that is not always the case, especially with wiley chemicals. Because the herbicides that NStar contractors use are approved for “sensitive areas,” they are not subject to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or local by-laws.

According to law, herbicides may be sprayed up to 25 feet from croplands or pastures. They may be applied as close as 50 feet from wells, and up to 10 feet from standing surface water. Herbicides may not be sprayed within 100 feet of a wetland or a public water supply.

The 30-comment period extension  provides a window of opportunity to get informed on the chemicals NStar plans to spray. It certainly won’t allow time for them to be studied, but will help us understand if they need to be studied further before being sprayed near water supplies and sensitive habitat.

The breakdown

In 2009, a combination of herbicides, wind retardants, and surfacants were backpack-sprayed by certified applicators under contract from NStar in Falmouth. These chemicals may also have been sprayed in other town, in some combination. Here’s the breakdown, based on information from GreenCAPE and its sources.

• Krenite S (Fosamine Ammonium): This chemical has a low pesticide movement rating, and spends an average half-life of 8 days in the soil.

• Accord SP (Glyphosate): This chemical is better known in its consumer product form, Round-Up. It moves very slowly in the soil, with an average soil half-life of 47 days. It is known to break down in the presence of water and sunlight, so it is preferred for use near water. However, glyphosate and its breakdown products were found in 50% of samples taken from 23 rivers across the country, in a 2007 USGS study. This product, unlike Round-Up or Rodeo, is pure glyphosate, with surfacants added separately.
• Escort XP (Metsulfuron-methyl): This herbicide has a high soil movement rating, and spends and average of 30 days in the soil. An Oregon State University study found that its mobility increases its potential to contaminate groundwater.
• Arsenal (Imazapyr isopropylamine) : An EPA incident report found that a mix of imazapyr, diuron, and metsulfuron methyl applied to a fence row was capable of causing a fish kill in a pond 60 feet away and a bird kill 85 feet away.
• Garlon 4 (Triclopyr ester): A 1999 USGS study of 10 urban watersheds near Seattle found this chemical, which has a low movement rating and average soil half-life of 46 days, in 90% of the sampled sites.

An osprey nest and a transmission tower represent possibilities for nature and modern convenience to co-exist

Well, there you have it.  Should we trust the studies that have found these chemicals to be safe, or err on the side of caution? Might there be another way to tackle vegetation while ensuring an interrupted power supply?

As I pass by the Salt Ponds Areas bird sanctuary on my way to work, this image makes me wonder if we wouldn’t do better by leaving the trees and plants to the rabbits and birds.