With summer right around the corner, striped bass are starting to arrive in New Hampshire’s coastal waters. With their arrival, anglers from near and far flock to the state’s coastal rivers, estuaries and ocean waters to pursue this popular sport fish.

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is conducting a Striped Bass Volunteer Angler Survey and they need your help! The annual striped bass survey has been ongoing since 1993 and the information collected is used in the annual coast-wide stock assessment for striped bass.

As documented in last year’s report, catch rates have declined in NH’s waters the past four years and are down significantly from just six years ago.  Anglers who regularly fish in Great Bay have confirmed that fewer stripers are coming into estuary.  Excessive nitrogen pollution and the loss of eelgrass mean less habitat for smaller fish and crustaceans, and therefore less of the food sources that stripers rely on. CLF is working to reduce nitrogen pollution in the estuary to correct this problem and ensure the future health of our Great Bay waters.

To participate in the survey, simply fill out a logbook each time you fish for striped bass in New Hampshire waters. Volunteer angler survey participants are asked to measure each fish they catch. Fish and Game’s Striped Bass Volunteer Angler Survey is the only method currently available to get length measurements on fish that are released. This important data helps state and federal fisheries biologists assess the status of the striped bass population each year.

Fish and Game’s work conducting the Striped Bass Volunteer Angler Survey is funded in part by the federal Sport Fish Restoration Program, a user-pay, user benefit program. For more information about the Striped Bass Volunteer Angler Survey, contact Marine Biologist Becky Heuss at 603-868-1095 (rebecca.heuss@wildlife.nh.gov).

As the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, I urge all striped-bass anglers to participate in this important research effort.  It’s a great opportunity to enjoy New Hampshire’s beautiful coast while supplying much needed data on this important fish species.

–
For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter

The Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, along with the Coastal Conservation Association of NH, Great Bay Trout Unlimited and the NH Coastal Protection Partnership, coauthored the following editorial to The Portsmouth Herald.

A copy of this OpEd was originally published in The Portsmouth Herald. You can find a copy of it online here.

April 13 — To the Editor

The Great Bay estuary is in decline. That’s the inescapable message of the Piscataqua Region Estuary Partnership’s (PREP) most recent (2009) State of the Estuaries report, which tracks the health of the Great Bay and Hampton/Seabrook estuaries.

Of 12 primary indicators of the estuary’s health tracked by PREP, 11 show negative or cautionary trends, including two very troubling negative trends: nitrogen concentrations in Great Bay are increasing, and eelgrass vegetation — the cornerstone of the Great Bay ecosystem, and an important nursery for fish and other marine species — is in sharp decline.

Consistent with findings in the 2009 State of the Estuaries report, the N.H. Department of Environmental Services and Environmental Protection Agency have acknowledged that waters throughout the Great Bay estuary are impaired, meaning that their health is in jeopardy. Based on the overwhelming evidence that immediate action is needed to clean up the estuary, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun issuing draft permits to limit nitrogen pollution from sewage treatment plants affecting the estuary (there are a total of 18 such facilities, 14 of them in New Hampshire; none currently has a nitrogen pollution limit).

In sharp contrast to the need for urgent and meaningful action, however, a small group of municipalities calling themselves the Great Bay Municipal Coalition — Dover, Portsmouth, Exeter, Rochester and Newmarket — persistently have tried to claim “the science is in doubt” and to delay needed improvements to their sewage treatment plants.

In the face of the pollution problems plaguing the estuary, rather than taking meaningful steps to solve the problem, the municipal coalition has engaged in a withering, all-out assault on the N.H. Department of Environmental Services and EPA. Last summer they sought assistance from a New Hampshire member of Congress, resulting in a bill calling for a five-year moratorium on any EPA permitting activity in the Great Bay estuary. Most recently, the municipal coalition filed a lawsuit against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, challenging — on procedural grounds — the legality of its analysis regarding nitrogen pollution in the estuary.

Members of the municipal coalition have been sure to explain that they care about the Great Bay estuary, and that they want to be part of the solution. They say they’re committed to “immediately” upgrading their sewage treatment plants to reduce nitrogen pollution. But their words ring hollow. In fact they’ve made clear that while they’re willing to “immediately” upgrade their sewage treatment plants to reduce pollution to a certain level, if they’re required to do more they will litigate the validity of their permits, and they’ll do nothing to upgrade their sewage treatment plants while that litigation is pending. Actions speak louder than words, and so far the municipal coalition’s only actions have been to delay what must be done to save the Great Bay estuary.

The Great Bay estuary belongs to us all. The health of its waters is inextricably linked to tourism and the local economy, and to what makes the Seacoast such a special place. We cannot allow the health of Great Bay, Little Bay, the Piscataqua River, and all the waters comprising the estuary to be held hostage. The estuary is approaching a tipping point which, once crossed, will make its recovery all the more expensive, if not impossible. Just ask the folks struggling to reverse the collapse of the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland, alone, is expected to spend — conservatively — $11 billion to clean up the bay.

We simply can’t afford to keep kicking this can down the road. It’s time for the municipal coalition to start investing in real solutions rather than paying lawyers and outside consultants to thwart needed action. It’s refreshing to see the town of Newington, which will be subject to EPA permitting, embracing the protections required to save Great Bay; and it’s encouraging to see another community, the town of Durham, choose not to follow the municipal coalition down the path of litigation and delay. We all benefit from a clean, healthy Great Bay estuary. Now is the time for action.

Derek Durbin
Chairman, New Hampshire Coastal Protection Partnership

Mitch Kalter
President, Trout Unlimited, Great Bay Chapter

Don Swanson
President, Coastal Conservation Association, N.H. Chapter

Peter Wellenberger
Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation

UNH recently presented its new master plan to the larger University community. The plan includes entering into public-private ventures to develop retail and commercial space – stores – on existing agricultural land.

On the UNH web page, it states the school “is at the forefront of the efforts to define new personal, local community, governmental and global activities and policies for protecting and sustaining the Earth and its inhabitants.” It prides itself on being a national leader in sustainability and as a land grant institution it should be in the forefront of promoting local agriculture and protecting water quality.

So why are none of these lofty goals referenced in the master plan? You can read more about the master plan here.

What the University is calling “controlled development,” more closely resembles what I call sprawl. This type of development places much greater pressure on Great Bay and its tributaries from both point and non-point sources – waters that are already impaired from too much nitrogen pollution. In fact, there has been a rapid increase of impervious cover associated with development and sprawl throughout the entire Great Bay watershed. As noted in the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership’s most recent State of the Estuaries Report, the area of impervious surfaces in the watershed increased from 28,710 acres in 1990 to 50,351 acres in 2005 – a rate of over 1,400 acres per year.

The campus already faces huge traffic issues on Main Street and the idea of adding more development to this road makes little sense. Instead, the University should continue to develop its public transportation system to link the campus to existing retail development. We want to support vital downtowns, such as in Dover and Newmarket, not create low-density sprawl that will only compete with and erode these town centers.

And with the exploding interest in local agriculture, and the need for our communities to become more resilient in the face of soaring energy costs and climate change, the University needs to protect all of its agricultural assets, not turn them into parking lots. This includes such areas as Leawood Orchards – currently abandoned but valuable land that could be put back into agricultural production.

Thanks to an overwhelming outcry from the UNH community, the idea of developing the agricultural lands on the north side of Main Street appears to have been taken off the table. The next step should be to set aside all of the remaining UNH agricultural lands and a commitment to protect water quality from further development and sprawl.

–
For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Last week, I discussed how the municipalities that comprise the so-called Great Bay Municipal Coalition took the unfortunate step of filing a lawsuit against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, challenging its analysis of nitrogen pollution in the estuary. In an effort to prevent delays in solving Great Bay’s pollution problems, late last week CLF filed a motion to intervene in that lawsuit. You can find a copy of the motion here.

As I said in my last post, the declining health of the Great Bay estuary is well documented, particularly in regards to the effects of nitrogen pollution, which has reached unsustainable levels. We cannot afford to wait any longer in taking action to clean up the estuary. It’s time to start implementing real solutions, not to roll them back.

To learn more about our intervention filing, you can read our press release or our motion.

Stay tuned for more. I’ll be writing about this topic on a regular basis.

–

For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Just a few weeks ago, a group of municipalities calling themselves the Great Bay Municipal Coalition – Dover, Portsmouth, Exeter, Rochester and Newmarket – took the unfortunate step of filing a lawsuit against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, challenging its analysis of nitrogen pollution in the estuary. Despite the need for prompt action to protect the Great Bay estuary from pollution, the municipalities have chosen to attack NHDES’s nitrogen analysis on procedural grounds, claiming NHDES should have engaged in formal rule-making.

The declining health of the Great Bay estuary – and the effects of nitrogen pollution – is well documented. According to the most recent State of Estuaries report, nitrogen concentrations in Great Bay have increased to unsustainable levels. And the loss of eelgrass – the cornerstone of the ecosystem that provides essential habitat for juvenile fish (and is therefore a critical piece of the food web) — has been particularly dramatic, with some areas now completely devoid of this critical habitat.

Fortunately, some communities aren’t following in the path of these municipalities. Newington, for example, has been a strong supporter of recent regulatory efforts to reduce nitrogen pollution from sewage treatment plants. And Durham made the specific decision not to litigate against NHDES, and to instead work collaboratively with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) while at the same time exploring ways to reduce stormwater pollution.

Great Bay is approaching a tipping point and the recent lawsuit by the Municipal Coalition does nothing more than delay implementation of the necessary actions that are needed to prevent a collapse of the estuary. The waters of Great Bay belong to all of us.  It’s time for every community along its shores and within its watershed to start investing in real solutions and stop angling for delay.

–
For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

I know a lot of people in Exeter are concerned about water quality in the Squamscott River and the Great Bay estuary as a whole.  During a town election last week, Exeter residents decided to vote with their wallet and approved three warrant articles related to the treatment of wastewater, totaling over three million dollars.

This is good news for the Great Bay estuary and an important step forward by the town in meeting the requirements of their draft Clean Water Act wastewater discharge permit.  CLF strongly supports the draft permit and we applaud the decision by the town’s voters to get behind a cleaner and healthier estuary.

The first measure approved by Exeter voters will allow the town to develop a Wastewater Facilities Plan to meet the reduced nitrogen limit proposed in the Clean Water Act permit.  Exeter’s treated wastewater is discharged to the Squamscott River, which flows into Great Bay.

As the water quality continues to decline throughout the Great Bay estuary, the Clean Water Act requires communities to reduce the amount of nitrogen pollution from sewage treatment plants – an action that’s essential to the health of the estuary.  The approved funds will be used for a facilities plan that will be a first step towards designing a new wastewater treatment plant that will greatly reduce this damaging pollutant.

Residents also approved a plan to complete water, sewer and drainage improvements in the Jady Hill area, a residential area near the downtown.  The project will include the rehabilitation and replacement of sewer lines that will help prevent water – such as during rain events – from entering the sewer system and causing sewer overflows.

To save on sewage pumping and treatment costs, funds were appropriated to design and construct a water recycling system at the town’s water treatment plant.  Currently, water is taken from the Exeter River to flush out the filtration system and then is sent to the sewage treatment plant.  By recycling this water, it will save an average of 115,000 gallons of water per day.  These improvements will also mean fewer sewer overflows.

Clearly the residents of Exeter understand the value of the Great Bay estuary and the connection between clean water and a healthy, vibrant community.  We hope other cities and towns across the Seacoast will follow Exeter’s example.  Contact me if you would like to get involved working in your community for a cleaner Great Bay.

http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/

You also can follow me on Facebook or Twitter.

In a recent blog and in other outreach, I encouraged people to attend the EPA public hearing or contact EPA to support its draft discharge permit for the City of Dover’s sewage treatment plant. To ensure a cleaner and healthier Great Bay estuary, we must treat our wastewater to the highest standards possible.

In response to my call for action, it was inspiring to receive a copy of a letter written by a concerned citizen, Brian Giles, who lives in Lee and has been involved in environmental issues in the Seacoast for the past twenty years. In voicing strong support for the EPA’s proposed action, Brian’s letter discusses the significant losses of eelgrass in the Piscataqua River and Great Bay and the need for prompt, meaningful action to reduce nitrogen pollution.  His letter goes on to state:

“The Piscataqua River and Great Bay belong to the people of New Hampshire, Maine, and the residents of the Seacoast area. These waters have high commercial and recreation value for swimming, boating, fishing, bird watching, open space, and a sense of place. Equally important, thousands of birds, mammals, fish and other wildlife depend on these habitats to live, feed and reproduce. No one group of citizens has the right to put these waters at further risk because of perceived financial hardship.”

Brian’s letter concludes with the following statement: “All municipalities have an inherent moral and ethical responsibility to take care of their own waste products.”

I couldn’t have said it better. Protecting and restoring the Great Bay estuary – and averting the ecological collapse that could happen if current threats are left unchecked – is no small task.  But we have a moral imperative to do so – for all of us, and for future generations.  With more people like Brian championing the need to clean up the estuary, we’ll make it happen.

If you would like to know how you can become more involved, please email me. Great Bay needs you and I hope you too are inspired to make a difference.

For additional information about the Waterkeeper, visit us on our website or Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Aerial View of Site - Porous Asphalt Shows as Dark Gray

In 2003, a large retail development was proposed to be built on the banks of Pickering Brook, roughly a mile upstream of Great Bay. CLF voiced major concerns about the many pollutants that would run off of the retail center’s massive parking lots – pollutants such as metals, bacteria and nutrients – and the harm they would cause to Pickering Brook and Great Bay. In response, the project’s developer agreed to work with CLF and the UNH Stormwater Center to re-design their approach to managing stormwater.

The result? With guidance from the UNH Stormwater Center, the developer constructed a large portion of its parking lot using porous asphalt – an innovative approach that allows rainwater and snowmelt to percolate through the paved surface into a layer of sand and gravel, below. Porous pavement is an important and highly effective new tool in reducing polluted runoff; the Greenland installation is the largest porous pavement facility in the Northeast.

The developer also constructed a gravel wetland to treat stormwater from the site, before it reaches Pickering Brook. Recent monitoring by the UNH Stormwater Center confirms that these innovative systems are working – greatly reducing pollution that would otherwise occur.

Working together, CLF, the UNH Stormwater Center and the developer showed that innovative approaches can work – and can make a difference. To put Great Bay, the Piscataqua River and the estuary as a whole on a path to recovery, innovation and creative solutions will be essential. One of my primary tasks as the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper is to work with stakeholders to identify and promote innovative solutions to the problems facing the estuary. We’re extremely fortunate to have the Stormwater Center as a resource not only for Great Bay, but for the nation. And we’re fortunate to have successful models to be replicated in the future.

To view the UNH Stormwater Center’s “case study” description of this project, click here.

For additional information about the Waterkeeper, visit us on our website or Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Haphazard development, lack of coordination and poorly informed decisions can not only cause our beaches to be polluted and wildlife habitat to decline, but it can cost a loss of jobs and economic benefits to New England’s coastal communities. Continuing to have clean water and a healthy coast requires a bit of planning, as my colleague Peter Wellenberger pointed out in his post from last Thursday. An open, transparent planning process that uses the best scientific and local knowledge, fully involves all users and the public and protects the ecological capital that we all need to live, love, thrive and survive is the best way to go whether it is on the local, state, regional or national level.

This is why CLF supports the National Ocean Policy. We want your help to advance this much needed initiative.

Today is the last day of the comment period on the National Ocean Policy draft Implementation Plan. For more background on the plan, read my previous blog post – “Sexy? Alluring? Seductive? Hello there, National Ocean Policy” – here.

If you care about our ocean’s health, take a moment and share your comment through CLF’s action alert. Habitat for ocean wildlife, healthy and clean beaches, and thriving coastal communities are all worth a bit of planning.