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.

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.

An algae bloom in the Winnicut River, NH. Photo by Peter Wellenberger.

A week ago I had the pleasure of attending an event to celebrate the restoration of a tidal river. The Winnicut River – primarily located in Greenland, NH – is now the only dam-free river in the Great Bay estuary. Thanks to the hard work of the Winnicut River Watershed Coalition and numerous state and federal agencies, the project includes a new fish passage and, in addition to the dam removal, a restored shoreline.

Despite being a beautiful July summer day, the event was marred by one distinct image. The free-flowing river now supports a large area of abnormal algae growth – the direct result of excessive nutrients. Standing on the water’s edge, it was impossible to miss the mat of green slime. This certainly put a damper on the celebration.

The Winnicut River is not the only site in the estuary where algae is now taking over. Large mats of macroaglae can be found in the Lubberland Creek area, and algae has been taking over places where eelgrass – the ecological cornerstone of the estuary – historically grew. However, the Winnicut River provides a valuable lesson that despite our best efforts, the Great Bay estuary faces the risk of further degradation that could lead to a collapse of its sensitive ecosystem. Our only option is to invest in the needed improvements to our infrastructure to dramatically reduce the amount of nitrogen pollution from wastewater treatment plants and stormwater.

This is why it’s so important to build a stronger voice for the estuary, and why I’ve been working so hard to build the Rescue Great Bay coalition. In a previous blog, I discussed the formation of this new collaboration – at that time consisting of eight founding members: the NH chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, the NH Coastal Protection Partnership, the Great Bay chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Town of Newington, the Winnicut River Watershed Coalition, the NH Rivers Council, EcoMovement, and CLF’s Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper.  I’m pleased to say that in the last month alone, six more organizations have joined the effort – the Great Bay Stewards, New Hampshire Audubon, the Exeter-Squamscott Local Advisory Committee, the Lamprey River Watershed Association, the Oyster River Watershed Association, and Green Power Management Holdings, Inc. of Newmarket, NH.

As Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, I’m pleased to serve as the lead for Rescue Great Bay. We are building a common voice for Great Bay to educate the public about the need for immediate action to clean up the estuary. Everyone has who has joined the group understands what is at stake – the longer we wait to take corrective actions, the more the estuary is at risk.

Part of our effort is to show that the public cares about the Great Bay estuary and wants to see meaningful action.  Toward that end, we now have a “Rescue Great Bay” petition that hundreds of people throughout the Seacoast have signed.  It reads:

“We, the undersigned, believe that clean water and a healthy Great Bay estuary are essential to the quality of life in New Hampshire’s Seacoast region and southern Maine.

“We also recognize that the health of the Great Bay estuary is in decline as a result of  water pollution from sewage treatment plants and stormwater runoff.

           “We understand that public investments will be necessary to clean up the Great Bay estuary and keep it healthy now and for future generations, and we support prompt action to reduce water pollution in accordance with the full protections of the Clean Water Act, including the most stringent limits on nitrogen – the pollutant of greatest concern – from NH and Maine sewage treatment plants affecting the estuary.”

Sign The Petition Here

From Market Square Day in Portsmouth, to other events, it’s been great to engage concerned citizens with this petition, and to see how strongly people feel about protecting the estuary.  If you have not already signed, I urge you to do so by clicking here, where you’ll find an online version of the petition. Please also consider forwarding  the link below to your friends and neighbors and anyone else who cares about the future of this remarkable resource.

Let’s put an end to the sort of water quality problems I saw in the Winnicut River, before it’s too late. Together we can help ensure a cleaner and healthier future for the Great Bay estuary.

Sign The Petition Here

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.

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.