It had been more than a month since Tropical Storm Irene when I returned to kayak my favorite whitewater rivers in Vermont: the Middlebury and the New Haven. The massive flows from Irene moved some small rocks around, but in most places the overall character of the these rustic rivers remained the same, even after the storm. Sadly that is not true about sections of the rivers near roads where in the name of “repair” bulldozers literally flattened the rivers, excavating giant boulders, dredging gravel, and leaving the once vibrant river an unrecognizable shell. Rapids that used to be complex, multi-tiered stretches, supporting important habitat had transformed into homogeneous flat spots.

The untouched segments of river far from the road looked very different from the dredged and flattened stretches that destroyed not only a magical recreation space but crucial fish habitat as well. The contrast was stark and disturbing.  The river tamed unwillingly and transformed into little more than a pipe, losing its resilience, beauty, and health.  I thought again how important it is to protect these valuable and magical places.

Returning to these spots reminded me of the beatings we continue to inflict on our local waters: from stormwater and nutrient pollution to the destruction of fish habitat as we recover from Irene.  Our precious river ecosystems deserve better.  We can learn from their ability to heal after a hurricane.  We can stop treating our rivers like pipes and sewers and tell our friends, neighbors, and elected officials “enough is enough.” It is crucial that we do not ignore science and continue to reverse decades of recovery in our rivers.  We can contact our local town officials and request that they take a step back and seek expert advice before digging into your local river. The more actions we take as individuals, the more we can collectively do the work that will allow our rivers to heal.

Starting tomorrow, those concerned about Lake Champlain and interested in helping outline how to deal with nutrient pollution threatening its future will have a chance to make their opinions heard.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the help of Vermont’s Department of Environmental Conservation, is in the process of re-writing the Lake Champlain Phosphorous Total Maximum Daily Load. This effort must be successful if we are to reduce phosphorous pollution to our great lake and keep one of Vermont’s most important resources swimmable, fishable and drinkable.

As you may know, the TMDL is an important technical document which acts as a phosphorous pollution budget so Vermonters can plan for reducing how much phosphorous we ask Lake Champlain to handle. We currently add much more phosphorous – well over twice as much in some years – than is safe for the lake ecosystem. The result, excess weed growth, potentially toxic blue-green algae blooms and low dissolved oxygen, makes the lake less usable. And those problems are likely to become more widespread, particularly with two floods of historic proportion this year.

Thanks to the work of Conservation Law Foundation, the EPA ruled earlier this year that the TMDL approved in 2002 was not adequate to truly protect and restore Lake Champlain. Now federal and state authorities have organized a set of public meetings to help in reworking the TMDL which will take place over the next week and will be focused on the northern portion of the Lake Champlain basin. A second set of meetings focused on the southern portion of the lake is scheduled for November 14th through November 18thand I will send you more details when they are finalized.

As you can see from the schedule below, the first set of meetings are roughly organized by sector of interest. Given that a draft of the new TMDL is still in the works, I expect the topics covered during these conversations will be quite broad and include questions of funding, how to structure the TMDL and possible barriers to implementing it. I encourage you to attend one of them if you are at all interested in learning more, and especially if you have concerns or thoughts about the way this issue has been addressed and how it will be addressed in the future.

I plan on going to most of these meetings and will be taking notes, so if you are interested in the subject but cannot attend one of the meetings I am happy to provide you with my unofficial minutes of those I have attended (lporter@clf.org).

You can file written comments if you are unable to attend and the state has asked that, if possible, you let them know if you are planning on going to one of the meetings so they can make sure the rooms are large enough. Both can be sent to Michaela Stickney, VTDEC Lake Champlain Basin Coordinator, michaela.stickney@state.vt.us.

The EPA’s disapproval decision finding that the 2002 TMDL is inadequate can be found here:

http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/tmdl/pdfs/vt/LakeChamplainTMDLDisapprovalDecision.pdf

Vermont’s revised implementation plan for the TMDL can be found here:

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/cleanandclear/news/TMDL%20impl%20plan%20final%20-%20011510.pdf

The Lake Champlain Basin Program’s State of the Lake Report, which includes information on Phosphorous loads, can be found here:

http://www.lcbp.org/lcstate.htm

1.       Tuesday October 4, 10am – 12pm
Agricultural Sector
Winooski Natural Resources Conservation District (NRCD)

617 Comstock Rd, Suite 1
Berlin, VT

Phone: (802) 828-4493 Ext. 113
► (meet in the UVM Extension conference room in the complex)

 2.       Tuesday October 4, 3-5pm
Northern Municipality Sector
Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NRPC)

155 Lake Street
St. Albans, VT

(802) 524-5958
► (meet at NRPC offices)

3.       Wednesday October 5, 11:30am-1:30pm 
Business Sector
Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce & Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation

60 Main Street, #100
Burlington, VT
(802) 863-3489

► (meet at LCRCOC offices)
4.       Wednesday October 5, 5:30-7:30pm
Nonprofit/Mid-lake Watershed Group Sector
ECHO/Leahy Center

1 College St.
Burlington, VT

(802) 864-1848
► (meet in Alcove upstairs)

5.       Thursday October 6, 10am-12pm
Northern Lake Committee Sector
Lake Champlain Basin Program
54 West Shore Rd.

Grand Isle, VT

(802) 372-3213
► (meet at LCBP offices)

6.       Thursday October 6, 2-4pm
Stormwater/Urban Sector
Shelburne Town Offices

5420 Shelburne Road

Shelburne, VT

(802) 985-5110
► (meet at Shelburne Town Offices)

Camp Brook

The very severe damage in Vermont caused by Tropical Storm Irene led to an impressive and encouraging recovery effort both by state government and residents, many of whom volunteered to help their neighbors salvage and rebuild.

Unfortunately, however, the storm – the second flood of historic proportions in the state this year – also seems to have washed away much of what we have learned about the dangers of digging gravel from streams and rivers.

In recent weeks there have been dozens of excavators and bulldozers in rivers across the state digging gravel, channelizing streams and armoring banks with stone, not only at great ecological cost, but – particularly in the many cases in which a true emergency did not exist – greatly increasing the risk of future flood damage.

Meanwhile, the state, by not setting and enforcing clear limits on that work in the rivers, has done little – at least so far – to prevent the damage.

Knowledge gained by the scientific study of these river systems, also known as fluvial geomorphology, leaves little doubt that increasing the speed of water by turning streams that meander over rocky beds into straight chutes with little structure not only destroys vital habitat for fish and other creatures, it also increases the potential destructive power of floods. It was advances in this physics-based science which led to significant limitations on gravel removal from Vermont rivers during the last two decades.

Rock River

However, the recent flooding (and statements by Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin) has given new life to an outdated and inaccurate idea that removing gravel from the rivers is what prevented flooding in the past. This notion ignores the fact that restricting rivers into a man-made channel, cutting off the access to flood plains and jarring mature streams back into instability the risk of flood damage is significantly increased, particularly for neighbors downstream.

More on this subject can be found in a Burlington Free Press column here and in a Vermont Public Radio news story here.

Merrimack Station Coal Plant. Photo credit: flickr/Jim Richmond

New England’s old coal-burning power plants don’t just pollute the air. With their obsolete cooling technology, they also create havoc in the water bodies on which they reside. To control heat from the coal-combustion process, these coal plants draw millions of gallons of water daily into their antiquated cooling systems, killing the aquatic life that gets sucked in with it, and then discharge the super-heated, chemical-laden  water back into the fragile rivers and bays, where it creates untenable living conditions that destroy native fish and other species.

Under decades of pressure from CLF and other organizations, EPA has tightened its regulations around water intake and discharge at the region’s coal plants. At the GenOn Kendall Power Plant in Cambridge, MA, as a result of a lawsuit brought by CLF and the Charles River Watershed Association, EPA required last February that the plant owner, TriGen Corporation, build a “closed-cycle” cooling system that will reduce the water withdrawal and discharge of heated water into the Charles River by approximately 95%. Brayton Point in  Fall River, MA will finish construction of its new cooling towers in 2012, dramatically reducing its harmful impacts on Great Hope Bay.

Today, in another giant step forward, EPA issued a draft NPDES permit for Merrimack Station in Bow, NH, where heated discharge from the power plant’s old “once-through” cooling system has caused a 94 percent decline of the kinds of species that once lived in that part of the Merrimack River. CLF applauded the draft permit, which will require Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) to install and operate year-round a modern cooling system that will decrease the plant’s discharge of heated water by nearly 100 percent.

In a statement, issued today in response to the release of the draft permit, CLF called the requirements “long overdue.” Jonathan Peress, director of CLF’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program, said, “No matter what PSNH spends, it will not be able to turn this 50-year-old dinosaur into an economically-viable generating facility that benefits the people of New England. Still, as long as this plant remains in operation, it must comply with the law and we commend EPA for holding PSNH accountable.” Read the full statement here.

Just over a year ago, CLF and the Buzzards Bay Coalition sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to expedite the clean up of a nitrogen pollution scourge  on Cape Cod that was threatening the Cape’s bays and the local economy that depends on them. Today, CLF and the Bay Coalition filed a second lawsuit against EPA that focuses on the Agency’s failure to regularly approve and update a critical wastewater management plan that, if implemented, might have averted the crisis. CLF and the Bay Coalition’s actions seek to move the clean-up forward before it is too late.

In a press release, Chris Kilian, CLF’s director of Clean Water and Healthy Forests, said, “Cape Cod is on brink of ecological disaster. We need enforceable regulatory commitments to ensure that the clean-up happens before it is too late. The discussions of what solutions will work and how to pay for them are critical and must continue, but they can’t go on forever. We intend to hold EPA accountable for its obligations to review, update and enforce a working, time-bound plan to stop the flow of nitrogen-laden wastewater and stormwater into the Cape’s bays. It is the keystone of this clean-up effort.”

The parties will commence a mediation process known as Alternative Dispute Resolution on Wednesday, September 21 at EPA’s offices in Boston. The deadline for a resolution is December 6, 2011.

Read the full press release.

If a tree falls in the forest in order to fuel in an inefficient electric power plant, does it make noise?  You bet it does.  This morning, dozens of advocates rallied at the Massachusetts State House to make a little noise while calling for the strengthening of the Commonwealth’s rules for forest wood-fueled – i.e., “biomass” – energy incentives.

Last year, we cheered as the Patrick Administration commissioned a ground-breaking study, known as the “Manomet Report,” to help understand the climate impacts of biomass energy.  That Report reaffirmed a growing scientific understanding that burning whole trees for energy can be worse than burning coal because of what I refer to as the “double whammy” effect:  (1) the immediate release into the atmosphere of the carbon stored in the tree; and (2) the tree that has been cut no longer is available to absorb new carbon from the atmosphere – or help promote clean water, wildlife habitat, shade or other benefits.

Based on the Manomet Report, the Administration released an encouraging framework for revised biomass regulations that included the key policy pillars of science-based carbon accounting, strong sustainable harvesting requirements, and minimum efficiency standards for capturing the energy stored in biomass fuels.  Unfortunately, the latest version of the regulations and related guidance have been substantially weakened, treating all forms of biomass as “carbon neutral” over a short period of time, promoting the removal of all harvest residues from the forest floor, and encouraging the cutting of whole trees for biomass fuel.  This retreat is disturbing both in terms of likely impacts in Massachusetts and the precedent it would set for other states, the nation, and beyond.

As we spelled out at today’s State House rally, Massachusetts still has an historic opportunity to “get it right”.  To make this happen, CLF and many others are asking for three simple things:

1.       The final biomass regulations must be based on the SCIENCE, consistent with the core lessons of the Manomet Report;

2.       Incentives must be reserved for practices that DO NO HARM to our forests, for example by leaving sufficient tree tops and limbs in forests to replenish soil nutrients and provide habitat;

3.       Benefits should be limited to those practices and facilities that AVOID WASTE by efficiently using biomass fuel, ensuring that the majority of its energy potential is captured and used.

The specific changes to the draft rules that we are seeking are spelled out in greater detail here.

Massachusetts’ forests currently absorb a whopping 10% of all the greenhouse gas emissions we produce each year from electric power generation, transportation, heating, cooling and all other activities combined. This doesn’t mean that we need to leave all forests untouched – there is a role for sustainably harvested forest products of many kinds, just as there is a role for untouched forest reserves.  But we do need to watch out for the “double whammy” and make certain that limited ratepayer-funded clean energy dollars are not steered toward wasteful forest harvesting and combustion practices that would move us away from the clean energy future we seek.

Hurricane Irene did not do as much damage as had been feared in New York City, but it brought much more human and environmental trauma two hundred miles or so to the north in Vermont.

The state is dealing with a second – and more damaging – round of historic flooding only a few months after Lake Champlain reached record levels in the spring. Three people were killed in the state due to the storm’s effects, and at least one more is missing.

Vermont’s roads, bridges and other infrastructure were battered as well. Several of the state’s covered bridges were damaged or washed away despite having stood for a century or more. At one point it seemed likely that water would have to be released from the Marshfield reservoir in order to save it, even at the risk of adding to flooding downstream. Although hundreds of households downstream from the dam were evacuated, the release of water did not prove necessary as floods crested.

“The scope of this disaster is unprecedented in modern Vermont history,” Vermont Transportation Secretary Brian Searles said.

On its own, the flooding of the last few days would have been a dire warning about how ill prepared the infrastructure in the state – and the region – is for sudden and violent rainfall, the kind we can expect to come along with climate change. But the devastation of tropical storm Irene was the second time this year that Vermonters have seen their wastewater treatment, stream banks, roads and bridges tested to the limits.

But despite these and other clear indications that our public infrastructure is not ready for weather that is likely to be wetter and more extreme we don’t seem to be able to cut spending on building and improving that infrastructure fast enough to satisfy national leaders.

And set aside for a moment the kind of innovative approaches we need so badly now such as green development techniques to handle polluted runoff from parking lots and roofs, better sewer projects with the capacity and technology to deal with higher water volumes and modern water management on farms. Our public spending on infrastructure projects of a more traditional kind has declined since the 1960s until now we invest half as much (as a function of GDP) as the Europeans, according to The Economist.

That historical decline in infrastructure spending has left those public projects we own in common at the weakest they have been in more than a generation, just when their strength will be needed to protect our homes, businesses and our lives. And that has happened just when we should instead be gaining the jobs and economic benefits of building the kind of modern projects needed to prevent personal, financial and environmental destruction from an increasingly violent climate we have brought on ourselves.

Yesterday, National Public Radio reported on a severe toxic algae bloom that is plaguing a popular lake in Oklahoma.

The algae in Oklahoma was spurred by familiar factors – lower water levels in the lake due to higher  water consumption by people, hotter conditions and low rainfall attributable to climate change, and nutrient pollution swept into the lake by stormwater runoff from the surrounding land area.

What was new was to hear public officials acknowledge that the lack of clean water is hurting the local economy and impacting people’s health.

As NPR Reported:

“ Across the state, the lack of water has even cut into tourism. Low water levels in northeast Oklahoma’s Grand Lake resulted in a spike of toxic levels of blue-green algae.

Gov. Mary Fallin says this hit just as visitors were arriving for July 4 celebrations.

It took a toll on businesses and tourism at the lake itself,” Fallin says. ‘Some of the businesses I talked to at Grand Lake told me they saw a 50 percent drop in the number of people who were coming into their businesses.’”

As the CLF Scoop reported earlier this summer, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe got sick after swimming amid the toxic blue-green algae in Grand Lake, and pinned his own illness on the algae.  Inhofe is known as one of the staunchest anti-environmentalists in Congress, and has opposed regulation to address climate change.  The Senator himself reportedly admitted the irony, suggesting that “the environment was fighting back.”

CLF hasn’t been sitting on the sidelines like some.  We’re fighting back against the sources of toxic algae blooms in New England – polluted stormwater runoff, inadequate management of sewage, and carbon dioxide emissions that accelerate climate change.  Reversing the devastating toxic algae blooms that regularly shut down bays along Cape Cod, Lake Champlain, New Hampshire’s Great Bay, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, and elsewhere throughout the region is a top priority for CLF.

Unfortunately, it has taken a crisis to convince some elected officials what CLF has known for years.  Clean water generates economic growth, health, and tourism, while creating outdoor spaces that nurture our spirit.

Cynthia Liebman is a staff attorney at CLF Massachusetts. (Photo credit: Leslie Boudreau)

The most expensive stormwater runoff problem to fix is the one that’s not addressed. That’s the first point CLF Massachusetts Staff Attorney Cynthia Liebman makes in this smart letter to the editor published yesterday in the MetroWest Daily News. The letter is in response to the paper’s July 26 article stating that officials in the town of Milford, MA are considering suing EPA over the costs of EPA’s proposed regulations to clean up toxic stormwater runoff.

“Toxic algae blooms and other symptoms of pollution from paved areas undermine the clean water and recreational opportunities that make our towns desirable places to live, visit, and do business,” she writes. “EPA’s new pollution control program in the communities that discharge into the Charles River and its feeder streams provides more equitable cost sharing than the status quo.” More >