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

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.

Catch up with the latest news from TalkingFish.org, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. TalkingFish.org aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• September 7: “What happens to river herring in 2012?” – Populations of river herring are in serious decline across the Atlantic coast; some states have seen their populations drop by 99 percent or more.  Next year, the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC), the body that manages river herring fishing within state waters, is requiring states to declare a moratorium on fishing for river herring. Talking Fish discusses the importance of this action and what it means for fishing in state waters.
• September 8: “Fish Talk in the News – Thursday, September 8″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest TalkingFish.org readers.

Catch up with the latest news from TalkingFish.org, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. TalkingFish.org aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• August 31: “Fish Talk in the News – Wednesday, August 31″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest TalkingFish.org readers.
• September 1: Overfishing 101: New England’s First Year of Fishing Under Sectors” – In the latest post in his Overfishing 101 series, Pew Environment Group’s Lee Crockett writes about the positive nature of the preliminary data from the New England groundfish fishery’s first year under sectors. He also discusses the importance of adding measures to the system that will make it even more successful and continue to provide opportunities for New England’s traditional small-scale fishermen to prosper.

Catch up with the latest news on Talking Fish, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. Talking Fish aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• August 23: “Breaking a System That Isn’t Broken?” – Ken Stump, Policy Director of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, writes about how those who demonize the New England fishery management system and call for it to be dismantled have ignored the significant progress the system has made towards ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks in the region.
• August 24: “Fishermen and Conservationists Forced to Federal Courts for River Herring Help” – Earthjustice attorney Roger Fleming updates readers on three federal lawsuits currently underway to force government officials to sustainably manage river herring.
• August 25: “Fish Talk in the News – Thursday, August 25″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest Talking Fish readers.

Catch up with the latest news on Talking Fish, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. Talking Fish aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• August 16: “Consumer education is the key to better prices for New England fish” – Glen Libby, Maine fisherman, writes about educating consumers about the importance of buying fish that are caught locally and are sold at prices that allow fishermen to make a profit and continue to fish sustainably and responsibly.
• August 18: “Overfishing 101: Why rebuilding fish populations benefits everyone” – In the latest post in his “Overfishing 101″ series, Lee Crockett of the Pew Environment Group writes about how rebuilding fish populations provides long-term benefits for commercial fishermen, coastal communities, ecosystems, consumers, and recreational fishermen.
• August 18: “Fish Talk in the News – Thursday, August 18″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest Talking Fish readers.

Catch the latest news from Talking Fish, the blog brought to you by CLF and others that is focused on the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries.

August 11: “New research on the Atlantic wolffish, a depleted species that needs our help,” by Talking Fish

August 10: “Growing concern for the status of river herring,” by Roger Fleming

August 9: “Fish Talk in the News – Tuesday, August 9,” by Talking Fish

Catch the latest news from Talking Fish, the blog brought to you by CLF and others that is focused on the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries.

August 2: “Fish Talk in the News – Tuesday, August 2,” by Talking Fish

August 5: “Overfishing 101: A big fish story we should take seriously,” by Lee Crockett

For more Talking Fish posts, visit www.talkingfish.org.

(Photo credit: NOAA Photo Library)

It’s more of an obsession, really. I spend a lot of time in the water: surfing, boogie boarding with my kids, or just cooling off. I think about sharks every time I get in the ocean. If I haven’t had a good long think about them before I get in, then I ponder their existence as soon as I’ve made it out past the break and I’m dangling my feet off the sides of my seal shaped surfboard. If you meet a surfer who says they don’t think about sharks, they are lying.

So, why the love? Well, I love the ocean. I love a balanced ecosystem. I love eating fish and shellfish. Sharks are one of our more exciting apex predators. An apex predator is the one at the top of the food chain that keeps the populations in check all the way down the line. Recent studies on shark populations have found that a drop in shark numbers leads to plummeting shellfish populations. Sharks eat other predatory fish, as well as rays and other animals that feed on shellfish. Once the sharks are gone, the clams, scallops and oyster populations are preyed on heavily by animals that would normally not be so abundant.  Unfortunately, sharks are declining precipitously around the world. Sharks are taken intentionally for “finning” (the removal of fins for shark fin soup), and unintentionally as bycatch during the fishing of other species. Marine scientists aren’t exactly sure how things would play out if sharks were gone, but none of the scenarios are good.

In “A Sand County Almanac,” Aldo Leopold wrote about one of the apex predators of the west. In his days with the Forest Service there was a mass kill policy for wolves. As a result, deer populations exploded. This led to major overgrazing of mountain vegetation. Erosion and river-choking sedimentation are a couple of the problems associated with overgrazing. Leopold wrote: “I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer.” This was a formative part of his land ethic. Simply put “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

The release last year of our National Ocean Policy (NOP) was a big step in promoting a saltwater version of this ethic. CLF’s Priscilla Brooks had this to say about the newly created NOP: “For the first time in this country’s history, we will have a national policy that aligns the great promise of our oceans with the great responsibility for managing them in a coordinated, thoughtful and sustainable fashion. New England has led the charge to balance the ever-increasing interest in our state waters … with the need to protect wildlife and critical habitat areas so that our region’s oceans will continue to be productive for generations to come. From Massachusetts to Rhode Island to Maine, we are developing ocean management plans that will serve as guides for better protection and management in federal waters across the nation.”

Ecosystem-based management is at the heart of the NOP. Healthy shark populations are just one facet of a balanced ecosystem. Seal populations have been recovering after near decimation from hunting (and a thriving shark population will keep the seals in check). Some commercial fish populations are now recovering from decades of overfishing. Shellfish, seals, sharks, commercial fish – all are linked. We can’t “manage” one without the effects cascading through the others. Ecosystem-based ocean management plans will consider these connections.

So, even as I picture just what it would look like if a great white shark came rushing from the depths for a neoprene-wrapped snack (me), I still love sharks.  I try to be sensible. I avoid the water at dawn and dusk (unless the waves are really good). I stay in shallow water. I get out of the areas where seabirds are working – evidence of major food chain activity. And I’ll take a shark sighting as seriously as anyone. But, since sharks are essential for thriving, productive oceans, they are good to have around. Even if I don’t want them around me.