Why does CLF heart estuaries? For so many reasons. Estuaries are one of nature’s great ideas. Not just an elegant transition from freshwater to saltwater, estuaries also provide rich feeding grounds for coastal birds and are important places for fish and other marine life to reproduce. Their sheltered waters and unique vegetation provide juvenile animals with places to hide and find food. This is why estuaries are often called the “nurseries of the sea.”

Some of New England’s best known estuaries include Casco Bay, the many small bays and inlets of Massachusetts’ shore, the Great Bay in New Hampshire and, of course, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. Estuaries are great places for recreation and tourism. Boating, bird-watching, and fishing are some of our favorite estuary pastimes. Not only are estuaries beneficial to us for relaxing and enjoying nature, they are extremely valuable and provide other services as well. They are natural filters – storing and trapping pollutants and sediments that come off the land, preventing them from reaching the blue water. They also provide protection from coastal flooding. With all these wonderful reasons, what’s not to love about estuaries!

CLF works to protect and restore these amazing and valuable places with a network of like-minded conservation groups across the nation. Restore America’s Estuaries is a national alliance of coastal conservation organizations committed to protecting and restoring the lands and waters essential to the richness and diversity of coastal life. The challenge we all face is to make sure our estuaries and other waterways receive the care and proper management they deserve. Restoring degraded streams and rivers is a great way to provide healthy estuaries and the benefits we love and depend upon. If you love estuaries too (and we know you do), then take a minute to share the love online through the I Heart Estuaries Facebook page. Let the Congress and the Administration know of your heartfelt desire to see New England’s estuaries receive better protection and stewardship.

Algae Growth in the Winnicut River, Greenland, NH; photo by Peter W.

In early January, the Town of Exeter’s Selectmen voted 5 to 0 not to appeal a permit issued by the EPA – a permit that will require a major upgrade of its sewage treatment plant. Exeter becomes the second Great Bay community to accept stringent reductions in nitrogen pollution from a sewage treatment plant, following in the footsteps of Newmarket which announced in December they would not appeal a similar permit.

Together, Exeter and Newmarket have taken an important first step toward tackling the issue of nitrogen pollution – a problem that is contributing to a decline in the health of the estuary. Sewage treatment plants are a major source of nitrogen pollution, especially dissolved inorganic nitrogen – the form of nitrogen of greatest concern. According to the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP) State of Our Estuaries 2013 report, there has been a 68% average increase in this troubling form of nitrogen between 1974 and 2011. You can read PREP’s entire 2013 report here.

The most effective method for reducing nitrogen inputs to the estuary is by upgrading aging and outdated sewage treatment plants. Like Newmarket, Exeter will now begin the process of constructing a new plant that will lead to a significant reduction in nitrogen levels. You can read about Exeter’s plans here.

Unfortunately, officials from Dover and Rochester have decided it is not in their best interest for others to invest in new infrastructure designed to reduce nitrogen pollution. On December 14, they filed an appeal of Newmarket’s permit. That’s right: Dover and Rochester are appealing a permit issued to Newmarket – a permit with no bearing on their respective communities. As discussed in an op-ed written by me and other members of the Rescue Great Bay coalition, this latest legal maneuver is part of an ongoing campaign to derail needed efforts to protect the estuary. It’s time for Dover and Rochester to step aside and let communities solve the problems facing Great Bay.

In this regard, you can help the Great Bay estuary by taking action now: follow this link to urge the mayors of Rochester and Dover to drop their appeal of Newmarket’s permit and let us get on with the business of protecting our waters.

We commend Exeter and Newmarket for their actions to protect our Great Bay waters, and we urge Dover and Rochester to get out of the way and allow other communities to get on with the business of cleaning up the estuary.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

In a move that will further delay progress cleaning up the Great Bay estuary, the Cities of Rochester and Dover, NH, have appealed a critical permit recently issued by the EPA to address the mounting problem of nitrogen pollution in the Great Bay estuary.

Whose permit did they appeal? Incredibly, Rochester and Dover are expending resources not to appeal a permit that affects their sewage treatment plants. Rather, in the height of arrogance, Dover and Rochester are appealing a permit granted by EPA to the Town of Newmarket, for Newmarket’s sewage treatment plant. Apparently, Rochester and Dover have decided that when it comes to the health of the Lamprey River in Newmarket, and Great Bay, they know best.

In a press release issued by the Town of Newmarket on December 10, the Town stated that “it is in the best interest of our community to work with the EPA to protect Great Bay instead of entering into a lengthy and costly legal process.” The Town has recognized this is not something that can be put off and hopes to move quickly to build a new, much-needed sewage treatment plant.

Unfortunately, Newmarket’s desire to constructively move forward with solving the problem of nitrogen pollution in the Lamprey River and Great Bay means nothing to Dover and Rochester. Filing this appeal could delay final permitting of the Newmarket sewage treatment plant for years, jeopardizing the health of the estuary. Click here to read more about Newmarket’s reaction to this unfortunate and unexpected legal maneuver by Dover and Rochester.

It is outrageous that Dover and Rochester – purportedly acting as the Great Bay Municipal Coalition, of which Newmarket is a part – would bring a legal action challenging another town’s permit. And if interfering in the affairs of Newmarket is not enough, Dover and Rochester – along with the City of Portsmouth – also recently filed a lawsuit against EPA challenging the regulatory process in the estuary (after having a similar lawsuit against the NH Department of Environmental Services thrown out by the Merrimack County Superior Court).

How much money do these communities plan to spend in their seemingly endless effort to delay cleaning up the estuary? In September, they had spent more than $750,000. Of course, the tab only continues to grow. Do the residents of Dover and Rochester really want their valuable city resources being used to prevent other communities from taking constructive action to protect their local waters and Great Bay?

If you are as outraged as I am by this latest development, please contact me at pwellenberger@clf.org to learn how you can help bring real progress to protecting Great Bay – now, and for future generations.  Enough meddling – we need to get to work and clean up the estuary.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and on Twitter.

As I travel around the Seacoast, it is such a pleasure to talk with people who share my love for Great Bay.  Recently, I made a presentation to the Durham Garden Club – a group that recognizes the importance of clean water – and ran into an old friend who cares deeply about the health of the estuary.

Dennis related his own experiences as a scuba diver and the changes he has witnessed beneath the surface in our coastal waters. I was so moved by his comments, that I asked him to write a letter to the local papers. His letter appears in both the Portsmouth Herald and Foster’s Daily Democrat, and I urge you to read it. As you’ll see, Dennis poses the question – based on his personal observations as a scuba diver – “Where have all the fish gone?” He notes significant and troubling changes, including “a huge decline in fish populations along our coast” in recent years, and “marked reductions” in critical habitat in the Great Bay estuary rendering it “largely inhospitable for fish to spawn.”

The changes Dennis describes are not easily evident viewing Great Bay from the shoreline, which is what makes his observations so important – observations that confirm the urgent need to reduce pollution in the Great Bay estuary before it’s too late.

As Dennis concludes:

“These changes negatively impact both the sport and commercial fishing industries and the recreational value of the Great Bay estuary and of our coast. We need to require that all of the municipalities upgrade their sewage treatment facilities to reduce nitrogen pollution before it is too late. We have an environmental catastrophe in the making.”

Again, I urge you to take a look at Dennis’s excellent letter as well as his underwater photography presented in the above slide show, as it provides a view of the Great Bay estuary that is largely invisible to so many of us.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Two years ago, Republicans dominated New Hampshire’s elections at every level, winning races for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, taking complete control of New Hampshire’s Executive Council, and locking up strong majorities in the state legislature.  On Tuesday, the political pendulum swung back in a way that is likely to end some unfortunate politics that have dominated the last two years, and to advance needed efforts to protect the health of New Hampshire’s environment and communities.

Democrat Maggie Hassan won the race for governor; Democrats Anne McLane Kuster  and Carol Shea-Porter won seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, making New Hampshire the first state in the Union to have an all-female Congressional delegation; the Executive Council shifted to a 3-to-2 Democratic majority; and Democrats reclaimed a majority in New Hampshire’s 400-seat House of Representatives and nearly drew even in the Senate.  (To learn more about changes in the state legislature, click here and here.)

So, what do these changes mean for the environment and the issues CLF is tackling in New Hampshire?

Clean Energy & Climate Change: At the state level, the last two years have been marked by aggressive efforts in the legislature to end New Hampshire’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or “RGGI,” and to preclude New Hampshire from participating in region-wide efforts to adopt clean-fuel standards aimed at reducing global warming pollution.  Governor-elect Hassan has made no secret of her support for RGGI, and a more balanced legislature should put an end to the sort of extreme, anti-science/anti-climate-change ideology that distracted the legislature – particularly NH’s House – over the past two years.  At the federal level, where Representative Charlie Bass has acknowledged the need for action on climate change and has on many occasions cast votes in support of renewable energy and protecting air quality, Representatives-elect Kuster and Shea-Porter will be allies in the effort to address the threats of global warming and to build a clean energy economy. (Click here to read about the recent Bass – Kuster debate and the candidates’ discussion of climate change.)

Northern Pass: Senators Shaheen and Ayotte, and Representative Bass, have continued to be proponents of a fair permitting process in the controversial Northern Pass project. We’ll be working hard to engage Representatives-elect Kuster and Shea-Porter and Governor-elect Hassan to build an even stronger voice for a fair permitting process – one that protects New Hampshire’s environment and secures a clean energy future for the Granite State.

Great Bay: In the past two years, Representative Frank Guinta has worked to undermine efforts to solve water pollution problems in the Great Bay estuary, going so far as to introduce legislation aimed at preventing EPA from issuing new permits to reduce nitrogen discharges, and politicizing the issue of nitrogen pollution – and EPA needed action – in a Congressional “field hearing” in Exeter. Representative-elect Shea-Porter, who has met with Great Bay stakeholders in the past, will provide a needed respite from such political theater.

The Capitol Corridor Rail Project: This year, New Hampshire’s Executive Council voted 3-2 (with Councilors Ray Burton and Ray Wieczorak in the minority) against receiving federal funds to study the re-establishment of train service from Boston to Concord, via Nashua and Manchester. Fortunately, the opportunity to accept these needed federal funds has not yet disappeared. The election of Debora Pignatelli, Chris Pappas and Colin Van Ostern – each of whom has been highly critical of the Executive Council’s vote to reject these funds – signals a bright future for getting the Capitol Corridor rail project back on track.

Stormwater continues to be a major source of pollution to the Great Bay estuary. When it rains, runoff carries a wide range of pollutants – from dog waste and lawn fertilizers, to gasoline and oil, to heavy metals, nutrients and sediments – that flow into our waters with little or no treatment.

To combat this pollution, the UNH Stormwater Center and other local groups are working with Seacoast communities to implement projects at a neighborhood level to reduce the flow of untreated stormwater reaching the estuary. While many of these projects are small in scope, they demonstrate the value of dealing with stormwater close to home. One of the most interesting approaches is based on a program that was developed in Maine.

In 2009, the Kennebunkport Conservation Commission, in partnership with the University of New England, the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and others, developed the Lawns for Lobsters program. The program’s goal is to educate homeowners on steps they can take to ensure a healthy lawn with minimal impact on the environment. The program was also recently renamed Lawns to Lobsters, giving greater emphasis on the flow of water from our lawns to the ocean.

Other communities are now adopting the program, including one in New Hampshire. New Castle, the only town in the state composed entirely of islands, covers approximately 500 acres and sits at the mouth of the Piscataqua River. With a residential population of slightly more than 1,000, the town’s Conservation Commission is committed to reducing the impacts from non-point sources of pollution and launched the Lawns to Lobsters program last summer.

Residents who want to participate in the program take a pledge to use sound stewardship principles in managing their own property. This includes testing the soil before using a fertilizer, applying the correct amount, and not applying fertilizer if rain is predicted in the next 48 hours. Other measures include keeping the grass at least three inches in length (tall grass needs less water), planting clover as a fertilizer substitute, properly disposing of dog waste, and using herbicides and insecticides sparingly. Homeowners also are asked to consider replacing all or part of their lawn with native plants.

Long term, the town wants to encourage citizens to install rain gardens and vegetative buffers as a way to prevent polluted runoff. In a compact community such as New Castle, all of these steps can add up and help to protect our waterways. You can read more about the New Castle Conservation Commission’s efforts to protect the Great Bay estuary here.

In partnership with the Great Bay Stewards and the NH Department of Environmental Services, we plan to launch a similar program for homeowners next spring. The program will be based on the Department’s Homeowner’s Guide to Stormwater Management. Stay tuned for more information!  In the meantime, there are lots of resources available to homeowners on how to install a rain garden. The University of NH Cooperative Extension Services offer an excellent guide called Landscaping at the Water’s Edge.

As Waterkeeper, I find it encouraging that New Castle is addressing the serious issue of stormwater pollution. We all need to work together to solve the problem. By becoming responsible homeowners, New Castle residents are taking an important first step.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

I love rivers.  In fact, I love all things water. And so today I’m celebrating the 40^th birthday of the Clean Water Act, perhaps America’s most effective and far-reaching environmental law.

I grew up on a farm in upstate New York and spent a lot of time stomping around in our ponds, streams, and wetlands catching frogs, listening to spring peepers, watching birds and muskrats and ermine. We fished whenever we could and had a family challenge about who would be the first in the water after ice-out in the spring and last out before (or after) the frost in the fall. We marked the seasons by the coming and going of the ice, by the water temperature in the ponds, and, in some years, watched anxiously as drought lowered water levels and put our water supplies at risk. All of this has led to a connection to waters that has infused my life, including my professional career.

One of my earliest memories from over 40 years ago and leading to my lifetime of advocacy for clean water is of my father taking me to the Cayadutta Creek in Fonda, New York to see the stream running bright red and foul from pollution from the tanneries in Gloversville and Johnstown. I was overwhelmed by the image of the creek flowing by as a river of blood. My dad fumed that creeks and rivers all over were being poisoned by such pollution.

Cuyahoga River Burns in 1969

So it’s not a surprise that my family watched the news with outrage as America was shown the image of the Cayahoga River in Ohio literally burning in 1969. Perhaps we were told at the time that the river had burned on nine occasions in the prior 100 years. But in any case, that fire became the symbol of unacceptable water pollution for us and for millions of Americans who called on Congress for action. It helped spur the first Earth Day in 1970, and thankfully, it contributed to the political urgency for passage of the Clean Water Act on October 18^th 1972, 40 years ago today.

Passage of the Clean Water Act by the United States Congress marked the end of an amazing political process. On this day 40 years ago with strong, bi-partisan votes in the House (247 yes and 23 no (with 160 not voting)) and Senate (52 to 12 (with 36 not voting)), Congress overrode the wrongheaded veto of the law by President Nixon. Many members of Congress from both parties voted yes, but just as significant were those that didn’t vote. By consciously withdrawing from the debate, many Republicans heeded the voices of their constituents, defied a President of their own party, and allowed the override votes to succeed.

What has been the result of this historic event? The Clean Water Act became law and much of the severe industrial and sewage pollution of our precious waters has been brought in check. The Cayadutta Creek no longer runs blood red, and the Cuyahoga has recovered to the point that it won’t catch fire. That is a 40^th birthday present that we all can enjoy.

But, it also raises the question: if the Cuyahoga were burning today, could we pass the Clean Water Act?

I like to think that Americans would pull together again and demand action. However, the reality is that we are now living with “dead zones” that are threatening our communities and industries in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, on Cape Cod, and in Lake Champlain. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ranges from 6-7000 square miles – bigger than the State of Connecticut! This is the result of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that is pouring into our waters from agriculture, lawn fertilizing, excessive development, and sewage discharges.

Blue-Green Algae Fouls Lake Champlain 2011

And, just two years ago, we all watched with horror, as the Gulf burned from the BP oil spill.

So, this 40^th birthday of the Clean Water Act should also serve as a reminder to us all that clean water is as important now as it ever has been and there is still much more to do.

Here at CLF, we have a long legacy of fighting for clean water across New England. CLF filed the Federal Court lawsuit that led to a clean Boston Harbor. We have held numerous polluters accountable for discharges into New England’s waterways. We stopped oil and gas drilling off of New England’s coasts.

Today, we are fighting to protect waters from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from Cape Cod to the Charles River, New Hampshire’s Great Bay to Long Island Sound, and from Narragansett Bay to Lake Champlain.  We are working with cities and towns to create green infrastructure that cleans up stormwater pollution and beautifies our communities.  All of our efforts are possible because of Congress’s action 40 years ago today.

Happy 40^th Birthday Clean Water Act!

Officials from Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester – in their continuing campaign to delay critically important pollution reductions in the Great Bay estuary – have put the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on notice that they intend to file suit over the nitrogen discharge levels being proposed in their wastewater treatment permits.

As part of this campaign of delay, these municipalities have already sued the NH Department of Environmental Services, claiming regulators cannot proceed with requiring certain nitrogen pollution reductions unless and until the State has first engaged in a formal rule-making process. Now, they intend to pursue a similar theory in federal court in a lawsuit against EPA.

This latest move comes on the heels of claims from these same officials that conditions in the Great Bay estuary are improving. Extracting data from the upcoming State of the Estuaries Report to be published by the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP), and selectively focusing on certain brief time periods, they are attempting to make the case that nitrogen levels are dropping and eelgrass beds are coming back. While variations from year to year can always be expected, the long-term trends have not changed. Total nitrogen loads remain higher than they were in the early 2000’s and eelgrass health continues to decline.

What is even more disturbing is the statement made by Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester officials that eelgrass coverage is on the “rebound in Great Bay and Little Bay.” In arguing that eelgrass conditions are improving, they rely heavily on so-called “eelgrass cover” data – data showing the spatial distribution of eelgrass. While data may show eelgrass cover increasing in some places in the estuary, this can actually be a sign of severe stress. When eelgrass beds are in decline, it is not uncommon for the surviving plants to send out lots of new shoots in attempt to re-establish the bed. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the new shoots will mature into reproducing adult plants.

Rather than eelgrass cover, eelgrass biomass – which measures the total plant density in a given area – is a much more reliable indicator of ecosystem health. Unfortunately, even though eelgrass cover may occasionally increase in some places, the total biomass of eelgrass in the estuary has decreased dramatically – from 1,807 metric tons in 1996 to 545 tons in 2011. That’s a seventy percent decrease in eelgrass biomass over the course of fifteen years. This unfortunate fact contrasts sharply with the picture of ecosystem health that certain municipal officials are trying to paint.

At a time when we need to be solving the serious pollution problems threatening the Great Bay estuary, it is discouraging to see officials from a small group of municipalities once again attempt to delay needed pollution reductions. One of their own attorneys has publicly acknowledged that a lawsuit against EPA is likely to cost several hundred thousand dollars. That’s on top of the over $800,000 Portsmouth, Dover, Rochester, Exeter and Newmarket (the so-called “Municipal Coalition”) have already spent trying to undermine and delay needed regulatory decision-making. Wouldn’t these funds be better spent reducing pollution from aging and outdated wastewater infrastructure?

Newmarket and Exeter, also members of the Municipal Coalition, have not joined Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester in this latest tactic against EPA and hopefully will decide that cleaning up the estuary is a far more important productive path to follow. Durham and Newington are working to implement constructive solutions to the problems facing the estuary. We hope the Municipal Coalition will follow their lead and end this campaign of delay.

As I drive around the Seacoast, I see a lot of people getting their driveways resealed. Perhaps people are anxious to get this done before the onset of winter. I wonder, though, if homeowners realize there are different types of sealcoats and that choosing the right one can help protect the environment and our health.

Most sealcoats are made of either an asphalt emulsion or a refined coal-tar pitch emulsion. Although the two sealcoats are similar in appearance and cost, coal-tar pitch sealers contain much higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, more commonly known as PAHs. Present in crude oil and diesel fuel, these organic compounds are known to cause cancer.  Incredibly, the concentrations of PAHs are up to 1,000 times higher in coal-tar-based sealcoats compared to asphalt sealers, posing a threat to fish and humans.

The UNH Stormwater Center has been studying the impact of coal-tar based sealcoats and found that soil at the edge of the pavement contained several hundred parts per million (ppm) of PAHs compared to less than 10 ppm where no sealcoat was applied.  Soil samples taken three years after the initial application remained high in PAHs. This means that dust from sealed pavements, with elevated levels of carcinogens, can track to areas like playgrounds and homes.

The presence of high PAH concentrations in your driveway pose a threat to your family’s health. Studies at the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health found that constant exposure to PAHs can affect cognitive development and cause asthma and other respiratory problems in children.

Toxic to aquatic life, the presence of PAHs is also on the rise in the sediments of Great Bay, adding yet another stress to the estuary and putting its health at risk. UNH researchers are currently trying to determine if sealants are the major source of PAHs to the estuary and hope to build a model that links the contaminant to its source.

Unlike many environmental choices, this one is fairly simple – avoid coal-tar based sealcoats in favor of asphalt-based ones or, better yet, no sealcoat at all. Home Depot and Lowes no longer sell coal-tar based sealcoats, but they are still available at some other retailers. You can tell if a product contains coal tar by looking at the materials list for words like “coal tar”, “refined coal”, “refined tar”, and “coal-tar pitch.” If you hire a commercial sealcoat company, insist they only use an asphalt-based sealer and only apply if the outside temperature is at least 60 degrees F, with no rain forecasted for at least two days after application.

Maintaining a driveway in New England is never easy. Constant freezing and thawing can lead to lots of cracks, often made worse by plowing, causing homeowners to protect their driveways by using a sealcoat every couple of years. However, proper repair of cracks in your driveway can delay and potentially avoid the need to sealcoat.

To repair driveway cracks, which can lead to pavement deterioration, homeowners typically use a cold asphalt patch to fill cracks. One new product now available is called GreenPatch, an environmentally friendly cold asphalt patch that does not contain petroleum based solvents. This makes GreenPatch a VOC compliant material that is healthier for your family.

As consumers, we are faced with many choices. If you are planning a new driveway, alternative surfaces such as gravel, concrete or porous pavement are great options as none of these require the use of sealants. Since most of us already have an asphalt driveway, the choice is even clearer – maintain your driveway to avoid the need to use sealants, and if sealants are necessary, never use a coal-tar based product