Rhode Island Feeds

On Thursday, February 9, the EPA is holding a public hearing on a new Clean Water Act discharge permit for the City of Dover’s sewage treatment plant. The hearing involves a decision that will be critical to the health of the Great Bay estuary. We urge all who care about the future health of the estuary to attend. The hearing takes place at 7:00 pm in the McConnell Center located at 61 Locust Street (Room 306).

The proposed permit contains important new wastewater discharge limits needed to control the single greatest threat to the Great Bay estuary: water pollution caused by excess nitrogen. You can learn more about problems associated with nitrogen pollution and eelgrass loss, and the need to reduce pollution from sewage treatment plants, at our Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper website.

CLF strongly supports the draft permit’s important provisions addressing nitrogen pollution, and we commend EPA for taking this essential step toward restoring the estuary’s health. As the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, I encourage you to attend the Dover public hearing and voice your support for these needed protections.

The Great Bay estuary is a natural treasure that is intractably linked to the local economy and culture of the Seacoast region. Please join me in the effort to save this critical resource. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, please contact me so I can share with you other opportunities to protect the estuary.

Thank you for standing up for the future health and protection of the Great Bay estuary!

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

Earlier this week the Maine Department of Environmental Protection made a formal determination that Maine would benefit from an expansion of the state-owned Juniper Ridge Landfill located in Old Town. In doing so, it cut in half what the State and Juniper’s private manager Casella Waste Systems Inc.’s subsidiary NEWSME had asked for, authorizing an expansion that would increase capacity of the landfill by up to 9.35 million cubic yards, thereby adding ten-plus years of capacity. By cutting the proposal down to size, the DEP sent the clear message that it doesn’t want Maine to continue to be the dumping ground for New England’s waste. That relatively conservative approach is a good start but more work needs to be done to define the role of Juniper and other landfills and to fully address other flaws in Maine’s waste management system.

CLF opposed the Juniper expansion largely because an approval of the 20 years of landfill capacity proposed would have amounted to a surrender to the forces that are keeping Maine’s recycling rate down, limiting our reuse of waste as compost or for other beneficial purposes and driving (literally) Maine and out-of state waste to be disposed of in Juniper and other landfills in the state. So did this decision have the State only half capitulating to Casella and its waste partners?

The answer to that question is complicated and it is still too early to know for certain, but some things are clear at this point. There is no doubt that this decision indicates that the Maine DEP is willing to continue to make landfills a centerpiece of its waste management regime. However, that does not necessarily mean that it intends for Juniper and other landfills to be the option of first resort for our trash. Indeed, the DEP decision justifies its reduction in the expansion size by citing to the potential negative impacts that a fully expanded Juniper Ridge would have had on initiatives to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling. To its credit, DEP also implies that it will seek to eliminate disincentives in the tipping fees charged by Juniper that have the effect of making landfill disposal less costly than processing or composting waste as well as to limit the practice of disposing of massive quantities of construction and demolition debris processing residues at Juniper. DEP should be encouraged to aggressively pursue these efforts.

There are also positive indications in the DEP decision that it would like to change the 10-year solid waste status quo in Maine. The Department’s findings seem to encourage statutory changes that would limit the landfilling of waste from other states by redefining what is considered out-of-state waste. It also gives implied support for a statutory waste fee structure that would serve as an incentive to limit imported waste and to increase our beneficial reuse and recycling of garbage. Finally, DEP uses its authority in this decision to place some specific limitations on the manner in which Juniper in managed, by limiting the amount of both unprocessed waste and construction and demolition debris that can be disposed of each year at Juniper and by requiring audits designed to keep Casella honest and operating more for the benefit of Mainers than its own bottom line. These are needed improvements.

So despite the DEP’s decision to allow NEWSME to pursue an expansion of Juniper Ridge, there is some reason for hope in addressing the many remaining issues on the solid waste to-do list of the DEP, the Legislature and the Governor. At a minimum, the list contained in the DEP’s decision should be expanded to include: a meaningful increase in fees charged by the state for waste disposal at any landfill to fund recycling programs and disincent land disposal; re-establish and invigorate municipal recycling programs that create jobs, save towns money and reduce our waste; and, establish caps on the amount of solid waste that can be disposed of annually in Maine landfills to limit disposal and avoid the importation of waste by our waste to energy facilities, the residues of which fill our landfills. These actions would sufficiently counterbalance an expansion of Juniper Ridge to ensure that it is only one piece of a larger and more forward thinking strategy.

The Vermont Statehouse

A bill nearing completion will soon give the public much more say in environmental enforcement actions in Vermont.

Historically in Vermont, agencies and violators of environmental laws have often negotiated resolutions behind closed doors without notice to affected members of the public. The results have often been weak penalties and ineffective remedial action by polluters, a problem which Conservation Law Foundation has long worked to correct.

Vermont’s exclusion of the public from environmental cases was not only bad policy, but contrary to the requirements of federal environmental law, as pointed out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Vermont Environmental Division Judge Thomas Durkin.

The issue is also part of CLF’s petition asking the EPA to revoke delegated authority for the state to administer the Clean Water Act unless shortcomings in the program are corrected.

Last year, CLF and Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources, which helped draft the bill co-sponsored by Rep. Tony Klein and Rep. David Deen, brought the issue before the Vermont Legislature. A long effort in the House, including many versions of the bill and testimony from a wide variety of interests in two committees, paid off in a 109-25 vote of support.

This year, the second of Vermont’s legislative biennium, the work was taken up in the Vermont Senate by Sen. Ginny Lyons’ Natural Resources and Energy Committee. Another round of rigorous review by legislators resulted in broad support for the bill, which won final support on a voice vote Thursday after Tuesday’s roll call of 27-2.

If the bill moves on to be signed by Gov. Peter Shumlin as anticipated, Vermont will not only come into compliance with federal requirements, but it will help make sure that environmental cases are fairly and thoroughly dealt with, including consideration of evidence, where deemed worthwhile by a judge, from those affected by pollution.

The measure goes beyond federal programs like the Clean Water Act – it offers the same opportunity for public participation in state environmental cases as well.

CLF was helped in its work on the issue by the Vermont Law School’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, by members of CLF’s Vermont Advisory Board and by fellow environmental organizations, in particular the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Furthermore, as the bill was worked on and considered, some companies and industry groups who originally opposed the measure came to support its passage, helping to secure support by wide margins in both houses of the Vermont Legislature.

From left: Barbara Kates-Garnick, Carl Horstmann, Tommy Beaudreau, and Sue Reid. Credit: Meg Colclough.

Earlier today my colleague Sue Reid, VP & Director of CLF Massachusetts, joined state and federal officials to announce the latest milestone for obtaining plentiful and clean renewable wind energy from the Outer Continental Shelf offshore of Massachusetts. Specifically, they initiated the process for developers to begin leasing and site assessment, and for data gathering and public input, to facilitate off shore wind deployment in an area approximately 12 nautical miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and 13 nautical miles southwest of Nantucket. (The federal press release can be found here.) The “Call Area” as it is termed, was identified following consultation with ocean users, such as fishermen and other stakeholders, through an intergovernmental renewable energy task force led by Massachusetts officials.

Today’s announcement follows President Obama’s State of the Union address, in which he expressed the compelling need to develop alternative sources of energy. CLF agrees: the environmental imperative and ongoing energy transformation replacing obsolete uneconomic fossil fuel power plants requires deployment of the full range of available renewable energy resources. Because offshore wind is strong and persistent, it is among our most robust emissions-free renewable energy sources. We also support the laudable efforts of the Commonwealth and federal government, who share jurisdiction over marine resources, to join initiatives to expand our clean energy resources with efforts to engage in thoughtful ocean planning, both of which have been major themes in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has been a leader in both coastal marine spatial planning and in offshore wind deployment. Those experiences are now being replicated by other states and the federal government – something CLF welcomes.

In speaking alongside Tommy P. Beaudreau, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director, and Barbara Kates-Garnick, Massachusetts Under Secretary of Energy, on the steps of the Wind Technology Testing Center, Sue said:

“One might think it’s unusual for environmental advocates to be championing efforts to develop energy resources; after all, CLF led the charge successfully fighting off all oil and gas drilling in New England waters. That’s because we recognize that, while we need to pursue a portfolio of clean energy alternatives, there is NO other resource that has the sheer magnitude of clean energy potential as offshore wind. Offshore wind holds promise for displacing many gigawatts of fossil fuel-fired generation, keeping the lights on and homes and businesses thriving while we shut down old, dirty, inefficient coal and oil-fired plants.”

She also underscored how important this work is. She said:

“While most local eyes are trained on a different Tommy, out in Indianapolis for a certain small-stakes football game, we’re thrilled that this Tommy, the new quarterback of the Obama Administration’s offshore renewable energy team, is in Massachusetts, focused on moving the clean energy ball rapidly down the field here, in concert with the Patrick Administration and a host of other stakeholders. This is a battle that we must win. Success is our only option.”

Sue is right – milestones like this help us to realize the potential for a new clean energy future—one that is being fostered in Massachusetts through some of the strongest state renewable energy policies in the nation. Our challenge is to advance from salutary policies to new renewable energy deployment that benefits Massachusetts with jobs, economic activity, cleaner air and a healthier environment. Today’s development was one step on a path just begun.

• Monkfish with apple butter and shaved vegetables prepared by Chef Matt Jennings of Farmstead & La Laiterie - get his recipe on TalkingFish.org! (Photo credit: Matt Jennings)

  “Ask an Expert: Chef Matt Jennings never compromises on serving fresh and local seafood” - TalkingFish.org interviews Matt Jennings, Executive Chef, Co-owner and Master Cheesemonger of Farmstead & La Laiterie, who buys locally-caught whole fish from dependable sources he knows personally and trusts wholeheartedly – and he has a great recipe for monkfish as well!

• “Talking Eeelgrass” – When we talk about fish, it’s good to remember that they not only come from somewhere but that that somewhere makes the fish. Habitat is essential; without it even many migratory fish won’t have a place to call home. Many North Atlantic fish spend an important part of their life cycles in coastal eelgrass habitat, and eelgrass is declining.
• “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, February 3″ – A weekly roundup of stories we think will interest readers. This week: a new system to estimate recreational catch, Massachusetts’s new Commercial Fisheries Revolving Loan Fund and its efforts to brand Massachusetts seafood, raising tilapia in garbage bins in the Bronx, the latest in CLF’s work to protect estuaries and fish habitat, and updates on Gulf of Maine cod.

Robin Just is a volunteer for CLF with an educational and professional background in biology and water quality issues. This blog was originally published on TalkingFish.org.

When we talk about fish, it’s good to remember that they not only come from somewhere but that that somewhere makes the fish. Habitat is essential; without it even many migratory fish won’t have a place to call home.

An eelgrass bed beneath the waters of New Hampshire's Great Bay (Photo credit: Ben Kimball, courtesy of NH Division of Forests and Lands).

Many North Atlantic fish spend an important part of their life cycles in coastal eelgrass habitat, and eelgrass is declining. Eelgrass is a native submerged aquatic plant found in shallow waters from Nova Scotia to North Carolina’s Outer Banks. In the northern areas this hearty plant spends part of each year under sea ice. It is not a true grass, but a flowering plant that evolved from terrestrial flora. With thin, streamlined leaves, and an extensive root system, it is uniquely adapted to thrive in ocean tides and swell. What it isn’t adapted to deal with is nutrient pollution, dredging, and other anthropogenic stressors that have our productive eelgrass meadow areas on the decline.

Why does this matter to fish? Eelgrass is one of the most valuable habitats in the northeast. For example, in the early 1930s a “wasting disease” decimated 90% of the Atlantic eelgrass communities. This decline took a heavy toll on, among other things, bay scallops. Bay scallops are a commercially important shellfish that range from Cape Cod to Florida, and are very dependent on seagrass meadows. Not only do they attach to living eelgrass leaves after their larval stage, but they consume decaying leaves for a significant portion of their diet. Bay scallops declined dramatically throughout their range, coincident with the wasting disease, and populations didn’t begin to recover until the mid-1940s. Some populations, such as those in the Chesapeake Bay, have never come back.  Lobsters, clams, and other invertebrates also declined.

Loss of eelgrass habitat has an effect on other commercial fishery species as well. Some of these animals, such as cod, winter flounder, and lobster use eelgrass meadows as a refuge in their early life stages. The eelgrass provides places to stay hidden, feeding opportunities, and shelter from wave energy. Some species, such as striped bass, bluefish, tautog, and fluke will use eelgrass habitat as adults, as a place to hunt and forage.

A tautog in an eelgrass bed (Photo credit: MA Divison of Marine Fisheries).

In addition to providing a place to eat and live, eelgrass is part of the foundation of our marine food web. Eelgrass is a primary producer – turning aquatic carbon dioxide into food and energy through photosynthesis; it is then eaten by many animals that are then consumed by our commercially important species. In short: eelgrass matters a lot to New England fishery resources, and its decline is not good news.

The impact of the loss of eelgrass on these fisheries is hard to tease out from the many drivers of the decline in fish populations, including fishing pressure, habitat destruction, nutrient pollution, climate change, and other stressors. There has been almost no research done to numerically link the decline in eelgrass with population-level changes in commercial fisheries species. However, an 11-year study in Buzzards and Waquoit Bays found that loss of eelgrass was accompanied by significant declines in fish biomass, species richness, and other measures of community integrity. Worryingly, a recent investigation of New Hampshire eelgrass populations found they are declining by about 9% a year, and eelgrass mapping efforts in Massachusetts show significant declines as well. This is an issue the Conservation Law Foundation’s new Great Bay-Piscatqua Waterkeeper will be addressing.

While the link has yet to be fully characterized between commercial fish populations and healthy eelgrass, it is vital that recovering species have functioning near-shore ecosystems to support their reproduction and growth.

Why is eelgrass declining? The decline is worldwide. Our local populations are suffering from a combination of coastal development and nutrient pollution, dredging activities, over-grazing by Canada geese, and climate change. Here’s a brief description of each of those stressors:

• Eelgrass is extremely sensitive to light levels. Urban build-up and construction activities in our coastal areas put sediment in the water, which decreases water clarity, and that takes a toll on eelgrass populations . Nutrient pollution from wastewater, stormwater, and other human activities can promote blooms of algae that block light to these photosensitive plants and prevent them from growing.
•  Dredging activities uproot eelgrass and can completely decimate an eelgrass meadow. It can take ten years or more for eelgrass to recover from this kind of stress.
• Grazing pressure from Canada geese is on the rise as the warmer winters encourage more of them to stay local instead of heading south. More geese means competition for food, and the geese increasingly turn to eelgrass to get them through the winters.
• Climate change: as ocean temperatures rise, native plants feel the heat. There is evidence that northern populations of eelgrass will not be able to adapt to warmer waters as easily as the southern populations might.

Efforts to restore eelgrass are underway around New England, but it’s not a simple process. Areas that once supported thriving eelgrass meadows can be re-planted, but unless the factors involved in eelgrass decline are addressed, the efforts will probably fail. For example, if construction activities degrade nearby water quality, leading to eelgrass loss, and then the water quality recovers, restoration is possible. But if the water is still dirty, it’s not going to help, and the habitat is lost.

Waiting until we know exactly how eelgrass ecosystems and commercial fish populations are linked before we address eelgrass decline is a dangerous path to follow. Since we know for sure that many of our economically important species utilize this habitat, it makes sense to try and protect it. We need good science about the utilization of eelgrass habitat, and we need effective restoration efforts that address water quality and other physical stressors. This will give our recovering fish populations every opportunity to grow and thrive.

Courtesy of bradlee9119@flickr. Creative Commons.

The triple bottom line has become both a catch phrase and, increasingly, a realistic goal for everyone from investors to activists and urban developers. But in Massachusetts, aging MBTA trains and infrastructure coupled with proposed fare hikes and service cuts stand in the way of achieving the triple-bottom-line promise of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).

TOD projects are generally comprised of mixed-use or mixed-income developments that are situated within a half-mile of a mass transit station. They provide residents with easy access to the places they want to go (jobs, doctors, movie theaters, etc.) and place businesses within reach of employees and consumers along the mass transit system.

One of the advantages of TOD projects is their potential to achieve triple-bottom-line returns, providing economic, environmental, and community benefits simultaneously. By encouraging people to use mass transit and rely less on automobiles, TOD projects help to reduce both noxious auto emissions and climate-altering greenhouse gases. In fact, people in highly walkable neighborhoods drive nearly 40% fewer miles than their counterparts in the least walkable neighborhoods, which can reduce traffic-related emissions by as much as 2,000 grams of CO2 per person per day. Furthermore, the increased walking (at least 10 minutes daily on average) reduces the risk of obesity, regardless of age, income, or gender.

So TOD opens up new opportunities for growth without requiring the costly, carbon-intensive infrastructure needed for cars, and contributes to healthful, walkable neighborhoods that attract both businesses and residents. Sounds great, right?

Unfortunately, there’s a hitch. TOD projects rely on the assumption that the transit system is capable of supporting them. Here in Massachusetts, proposed MBTA fare increases and service cuts, as well as our aging transportation infrastructure, may prevent TOD projects from delivering on their promise. This is a bad thing for Massachusetts residents, for our economy, and for our environment.

The MBTA is old. After putting off badly needed maintenance on the Red Line for several years, an entire section has been shut down on weekends for emergency repairs, cutting off access for parts of Cambridge, Somerville, and beyond. And faced with a $161 million budget deficit, the T is now considering drastic fare increases and draconian service cuts, including potential elimination of over 100 bus routes as well as weekend service on the commuter rail and some subway lines.

The MBTA’s proposed fare increases and service cuts are unacceptable for MBTA riders and could prove disastrous for TOD projects, past, present, and future. Discouraging people from taking public transportation—either by eliminating MBTA service or making that service prohibitively expensive for riders—undermines the triple-bottom line goals of TOD. It may sound obvious, but TOD requires a healthy, functioning, financially accessible transit system to realize its full potential.

CLF is asking the state legislature and the governor to find a comprehensive solution to the MBTA’s funding problems, not just a band-aid for the coming year’s operating budget. And CLF Ventures is committed to finding triple-bottom-line solutions, like TOD, where profitable developments can also yield environmental and community benefits. Without continued investments in our transportation infrastructure in Massachusetts and a comprehensive solution to the T’s funding problems, TOD could become a triple-bottom loss for the economy, the environment, and for MBTA riders.

Controversy surrounding the proposed Juniper Ridge Landfill expansion and the state’s recent acquisition of the Dolby landfill have elevated the debate on proper management of Maine’s solid waste and reawakened the ire that Mainers feel toward policies that create incentives for the importation of out-of-state waste and the disposal of waste that could be reused or recycled.

Gov. Paul LePage, members of our Legislature and relevant state agencies should seize this opportunity to analyze where the solid waste policies of the past 30 years have left us and define a proper direction to take from here.

Never before has Maine been in a better position to positively influence the policies, practices and players associated with waste management. Consider these circumstances:

The two largest landfills in the state, Juniper Ridge and Crossroads, are currently seeking approvals from the state to expand their operations. A waste-to-energy facility in Biddeford is undertaking a major relicensing bid and the waste-to-energy plant in Orrington is renegotiating contracts with its supplier towns.

State government oversight of waste management is shifting from the State Planning Office to the Department of Environmental Protection. Waste-to-energy facilities are pushing legislation to re-designate them as renewable energy resources equivalent to hydropower and biomass plants. Add to all of this the fact that the state is now responsible for the operation and maintenance of another landfill in East Millinocket at a cost of at least $250,000 a year and has remaining obligations to help close numerous unsecured municipal dumps, and you have the makings of a solid waste perfect storm with no long-term plan to address it.

In the recent past, Maine has allowed events, such as the financial demise of two paper mills, to drive the direction of its solid waste policy. The negative consequences of these haphazard “policies of the moment” are many. A disproportionate amount of out-of-state waste continues to be disposed of in Maine landfills at below market costs and with no benefit accruing to Maine residents. Indeed, in 2009 we imported almost 600,000 tons of municipal solid waste, a substantial portion of which was construction and demolition debris that Massachusetts prohibits from its landfills and that cannot be legally burned in New Hampshire.

Our annual recycling rate has been stuck at just 38 percent for a decade in spite of a statewide goal of 50 percent. Nearly 40 percent of our in-state waste ends up in a landfill, even though by law land disposal is the solid waste option of last resort. Garbage trucks loaded with Maine waste drive past a Maine waste-to-energy plant to landfill their waste, while that same waste-to-energy plant is forced to import waste from out of state and buy woodchips to keep its burners fired.

We cannot afford to rush to solutions and perpetuate these flawed approaches. The confluence of events today affords the state the opportunity to immediately assess the value, role and future management of our state-owned landfills and the manner in which they interact with recycling, waste processing and waste-to-energy facilities.

The first steps in the right direction would be to deny Juniper Ridge a public benefit determination and refrain from acting on legislation to expand the Crossroads landfill until and unless the assessment identifies appropriate public roles for them in the overall state waste management regime.

Such an assessment is critical to producing policies that motivate individual and market behavior that will reduce waste disposal costs for taxpayers and retool the solid waste machine to render an efficient and effective system that reduces the amount of waste that we generate, maximizes the beneficial reuse of our waste to create compost, road surfacing and other products, increases our rate of recycling, turns waste into energy and that results in landfilled waste only after we have squeezed as much value out of that waste as we can.

Now is the time to act, not re-act.

A copy of this article was originally published in the Bangor Daily News on January 30, 2012.

Outlook with your head in the sand? Pretty dark, even when the future around you is bright. (photo credit: flickr/tropical.pete)

In a public hearing tomorrow, a legislative committee of the New Hampshire House will take up a proposal – House Bill 1238 – to force Public Service of New Hampshire’s dirty, costly power plants to confront the realities of the electric marketplace. The bill would require PSNH to sell (“divest”) its plants by the end of next year. Tomorrow’s hearing on House Bill 1238 is scheduled for 8:30 am in Representatives Hall under the dome of the New Hampshire State House, on North Main Street in Concord.

The debate is long overdue and comes at a critical time. Over the last several years, New England’s restructured electric market has overwhelmingly turned away from uneconomic facilities like PSNH’s coal and oil-fired power plants and toward less-polluting alternatives, especially natural gas. For most New England customers, this technology transition has resulted in lower electric bills, and we have all benefited from cleaner air. In the next few years, well-managed competitive markets are positioned to help us move to a real clean energy future that increases our use of energy efficiency, renewable resources, demand response, and innovative storage technologies.

CLF has played a key role in this process by, among other things, ensuring that coal plants are held accountable for their disastrous impacts on public health and the environment. As highlighted in an excellent op-ed in the Concord Monitor this week, CLF’s work includes our federal court case against PSNH’s Merrimack Station, New Hampshire’s biggest source of toxic and greenhouse gas emissions, which has repeatedly violated the Clean Air Act by failing to get permits for major changes to the plant.

Meanwhile, like the proverbial ostrich, PSNH gets to ignore what the market is saying. PSNH’s state-protected business model is a relic that has become a major drag on the pocketbooks of New Hampshire ratepayers and New Hampshire’s economy. Current law protects PSNH from market forces because it guarantees PSNH and its Connecticut-based corporate parent Northeast Utilities a profit on investments in PSNH’s power plants, whether or not they operate and whether or not they actually make enough money to cover their operating costs – an astounding rule for the small-government Granite State, to be sure.

The costs of this guarantee fall on the backs of New Hampshire residents and small business people, who effectively have no choice but to pay for PSNH’s expensive power. For their part, larger businesses have fled PSNH in droves, for cheaper, better managed suppliers. This has shrunk the group of ratepayers who are responsible for the burden of PSNH’s high costs, translating into even higher rates for residents and small businesses.

PSNH customers face the worst of both worlds – electric rates that are among the highest in the nation and a fleet of aging, inefficient, and dirty power plants that would never survive in the competitive market.

It is by now beyond dispute that these plants are abysmal performers. Last year, CLF and Synapse Energy Economics presented an analysis to New Hampshire regulators showing that the coal-fired units at PSNH’s Schiller Station in Portsmouth will lose at least $10 million per year over the next ten years, for a total negative cash flow of $147 million. The analysis did not depend on natural gas prices remaining as low as they are now or any new environmental costs; because it is old and inefficient, Schiller will lose money even if gas prices go up and it doesn’t need any upgrades. According to information provided by PSNH to regulators last week, PSNH’s supposed workhorse Merrimack Station will not even operate for five months this year because it would be uneconomic compared to power available in the New England market. Nonetheless, PSNH ratepayers will be paying for the plant even when it does not run.

It will only get worse: PSNH’s rates could skyrocket later this year if New Hampshire regulators pass on the bill for PSNH’s $422 million investment in a scrubber for Merrimack Station to ratepayers, and other costly upgrades of PSNH’s fleet may be necessary to comply with environmental and operational requirements in the future. And the PSNH-favored Northern Pass project, if it ever gets built, would only exacerbate the situation for PSNH ratepayers by making PSNH power even less competitive and reducing the value of PSNH power plants.

PSNH is hitting back against House Bill 1238 with its typical full-court press of lobbying and PR, and we can expect a packed house of PSNH apologists at tomorrow’s hearing. PSNH has even resorted to starting a Facebook page – “Save PSNH Plants” – where you can see PSNH’s tired arguments for preserving the current system plants as a “safety net” that protects PSNH employee jobs and a hedge against unforeseen changes in the energy market. The pitch is a little like saying that we should pay Ford and its workers to make Edsels half a century later, just in case the price of Prius batteries goes through the roof. Make no mistake: PSNH is asking for the continuation of what amounts to a massive ratepayer subsidy for as far as the eye can see.

Public investments have gotten a bad name lately, but it is at least clear that sound commitments of public dollars to energy should be targeted, strategic, and forward-thinking. They should help move us, in concert with the much larger capital decisions of the private sector, toward a cleaner energy future. Instead, PSNH is fighting for New Hampshire to keep pouring its citizens’ hard-earned money, year after year, into dinosaur power plants. That’s a terrible deal for New Hampshire, and CLF welcomes the House’s effort to open a discussion on how to get us out of it.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Northeast Region @ flickr. Creative Commons.

There could not be a more perfect time for a Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper. Working with CLF, I view one of my key roles as rallying citizens and communities around one purpose, cleaning up the estuary. Everyone living here has an impact on the estuary in one way or another.  It is our responsibility to limit that impact and become better stewards of our environment. Whether you live near the Squamscott River in Newfields or Stratham, or near Spinney Creek on the Maine side, we all need be more involved in the decisions that will determine the future of this wonderful natural resource.

Last Friday, I attended a meeting that was designed to foster improved communication among those who care about the future of the estuary. Convened by the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership, the meeting was part of an ongoing series of discussions known as the Great Bay Dialogue.  There are many individuals, groups and town officials concerned about the future health of the estuary, but a lack of coordination has always derailed past attempts to act as a single voice.

Twenty plus people attended this meeting representing state agencies, local government, land trusts and a mix of non-profits. In a large group, there are always differences on how to move forward. As Manager of the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for twenty-two years, I have participated in countless meetings on the management and protection of New Hampshire’s most important coastal ecosystem. So why was this one any different?

Everyone there made a commitment to work towards a cleaner and healthier estuary for one simple reason – the risk is too high if we wait any longer to act. The estuary is nearing a tipping point and once crossed, we may never be able to recover the ecosystem. The goal is to come up with solutions now that, in the long run, will cost far less than if we delay and allow the estuary to crash.

Achieving this goal will not be easy, but the more stakeholders we have involved, the greater chance of success. Clean water improves our quality of life and helps to promote a sustainable economy. From big fixes to small ones, we all have a role to play.

As Reserve manager, I helped to create the Great Bay Resource Protection Partnership. The group, to date, has invested over 62 million dollars in federal and private funds to protect and conserve land throughout the Great Bay region. Now is the time to protect that investment by increasing our efforts to improve water quality in the estuary.

Join the dialogue and help me in the fight to save the estuary from reaching that tipping point.  I can be reached at 603.498.3545 or pwellenberger@clf.org.

Me on a recent beautiful day on the Great Bay estuary.

I’m thrilled to be launching an important and much needed effort to restore and protect the health of our treasured Great Bay estuary: CLF’s new Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper program.

As the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, I’ll be devoting all my time and effort to protecting this remarkable water resource – a resource that is threatened by pollution and deserves all the attention it can get. It’s a place I’ve come to know well through 20 years of managing the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and by living in nearby Newmarket. The threats to the Bay have never been clearer, the opportunity to fix them never greater.

The objective of the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper program is to work for and protect the health of the waters making up the Great Bay estuary – our major bays (Great Bay and Little Bay), our tidal rivers (the Piscataqua, Salmon Falls, Cocheco, Bellamy, Oyster, Lamprey, Squamscott and Winnicut Rivers), and our wonderful harbors and creeks (Portsmouth and Little Harbor; Spinney, Spruce and Sagamore Creeks). Each of these water bodies, on their own, is an important natural resource. Together, they comprise a remarkable and rich ecosystem that is under threat..

Population growth, sprawl, and outdated water infrastructure are all contributing to the decline of the Great Bay estuary. Pollution levels have increased, leading to the loss of critical habitat within the estuary. Reversing these trends will require a multi-pronged approach including: the ineed to invest in improved  infrastructure, such as sewage treatment plants; innovative approaches to reducing existing stormwater pollution; and better planning to prevent future sprawl development and the water pollution it causes.

My work as the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper will include:

• advocating for needed policies and compliance with environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act,
• working with scientists and the many stakeholders involved in efforts related to the Great Bay estuary, and
• keeping a watchful eye on waters within the estuary.

Most importantly, I look forward to building a much stronger public voice for the estuary. Just as there are many people and organizations that care about the health and future of the Great Bay estuary, there are many more people who will care, and lend their voices to protecting this amazing water resource, once they learn more about the threats it’s facing. It’s my goal to grow the chorus of concerned citizens about our Great Bay.

I first learned about Great Bay 40 years ago as an undergraduate at the University of New Hampshire. I quickly fell in love with its beauty and richness and worked with others to reject the proposal by Aristotle Onassis to build the world’s largest oil refinery on the shores of Great Bay. These efforts led to the creation of the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve – a Reserve I had the privilege to manage for more than 20 years, from its inception in 1990 to 2011.They were rich, wonderful years that provided me the opportunity to work with a wide diversity of dedicated individuals committed to saving this very special place.

Having worked on Great Bay matters for more than two decades, I am deeply concerned about the declining health of the estuary. Just as its threats are many, so too are multiple solutions are needed. We’re all in this together; only through greater public action can we protect the valuable ecological, recreational and cultural benefits of this remarkable resource. It’s a major challenge, but it’s one I welcome working on with you.

Please contact me with questions or concerns about the Great Bay estuary (603.498.3545, or pwellenberger@clf.org), and stay informed about my work by visiting www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper.

Entergy asked the Public Service Board today to just give it a new certificate of public good claiming no further review is needed. (Read the motion here.)

Judge Murtha’s decision was clear. The Vermont Public Service Board continues to have authority to review Entergy’s actions and determine if continued operation is beneficial to Vermont.

CLF opposed Entergy’s past efforts. This new request is premature. It is contrary to the Court’s order and ignores facts that are important for the Board to hear. Most notable is the fact that Entergy provided false information to the Board about buried pipes.

Entergy’s lack of trustworthiness cannot be ignored. It is an important matter that has bearing on whether Entergy should be allowed to continue to operate Vermont Yankee.

While Entergy might like to ignore these facts, Vermont won’t.

As the public hearings on the MBTA’s proposals for fare hikes and service cuts continue across the Commonwealth, Massachusetts Transportation Secretary Richard Davey is telling the media that he’s hearing that  T riders would rather pay more than have their service cut. Speaking on behalf of Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA), CLF staff attorney Rafael Mares said that Secretary Davey’s remarks are disappointing, if not surprising, given the false choice the MBTA has given transit users.

Mares  said, “The MBTA has backed transit users against a wall, asking them to choose between two unacceptable scenarios. A fare increase may seem like the lesser of two evils to those who have a choice. But, what about those who can’t afford the increases and won’t be able to get to their jobs, or school, or a doctor’s appointment because they rely on public transportation? The MBTA has created a false choice between draconian service cuts and drastic fare increases. The reality is it’s a lose-lose situation for transit users and Massachusetts. If Secretary Davey is hearing a chorus of ‘I would rather pay more but not cut the service,’ it wasn’t singing at any of the hearings we’ve been attending.”

Mares continued, “The proposed fare increases and service cuts are unfair and only a band-aid. The MBTA’s proposals give the legislature a free pass, balancing the books solely on the backs of the riders. These proposed measures will push people off the T and into their cars, or leave them without any transportation at all. We need long-term solutions that share the burden of a working transportation system among everyone who benefits from it, which is to say everyone in Massachusetts. T4MA is calling on the legislature and the administration to immediately identify funds to reduce the T’s projected deficit and develop adequate, sustainable funding for transportation so we’re not repeating this conversation again next year.”

To read a copy of the original statement, click here.

• “Bottom Line: Historic Anniversary for Fishing in America’s Oceans”: Lee Crockett of the Pew Environment Group discusses the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the progress that has been made because of its strict limits on overfishing.
• “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, January 27″: This week’s news roundup: discussion of NOAA’s potential move from the Department of Commerce to the Department of the Interior, talking fishery management with Maine fisherman Glen Libby, and updates on menhaden conservation and the Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment.

Late on Wednesday night residents of Springfield celebrated an important victory in their longstanding fight against a biomass-burning plant that Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) proposes to construct in their community. Acting on the petition of local residents Michaelann Bewsee and Toni and William Keefe,  the Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) overturned the two building permits that were issued to PRE last November. Media coverage of the ZBA decision is available here and here.

The ZBA declared the building permits unlawful because, in an attempt to avoid City Council review of the project, PRE had not obtained a special permit that is required for the proposed plant. Responding to convincing presentations from Ms. Bewsee and Attorney Pat Markey, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined that because the facility will engage in incineration, the Springfield Zoning Ordinance requires a special permit from the City Council before building permits can issue. CLF has worked closely with Ms. Bewsee, her organization, Arise for Social Justice, Toxics Action Center and the community group Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, to protest this proposed power plant, which would bring additional harmful air pollution to Springfield. Siting this project in this location would be particularly inequitable, as Springfield is already a grossly overburdened environmental justice community that suffers disproportionately from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases because of exposure to air pollution.

CLF warmly congratulates the community on this victory, and thanks the Springfield City Council for the important role it played in upholding the integrity of their Zoning Ordinance.

At a time when our governors and our President were preparing to address their constituents, CLF was (and is) making news – news that raises a series of enduring questions: In our country, where is the line between federal and state authority? How clear is it? Who gets to draw it? Why would you draw it in one place instead of another?

These questions are so challenging because they are so fundamental; Americans have wrestled with these same questions for over 200 years. You’ll recall that our first national government, under the Articles of Confederation, was too weak to do the job. The Constitution granted greater power to the national government, but had to be balanced by the Bill of Rights, securing the rights of individuals and of states. The rest of our efforts to get the federal/state balance right has been marked by long periods of contentious negotiation and flashbulb moments of fractious history –national banking, secession and the Civil War, the busting of industrial trusts, the New Deal, and civil rights for all.

Protecting our health and our environment has been a part of the national and regional negotiations for decades. Recent events have provoked further discussion.

By the 1960’s and ‘70’s, when Congress began to address environmental protection and energy in a serious way, its constitutional authority to do so was relatively clear. It exercised that authority boldly, for the great benefit of generations of people and other species. However, as in much of our federalist system, there’s still a sharing of power between national and state governments, both by design and by default. The zone between federal and state authority is sometimes gray. It’s in that messy, gray area that many of our most controversial environmental issues are being debated.

These debates continue to this day. Take two of CLF’s hot issues recently in the news: Vermont Yankee and Cape Cod nitrogen pollution.

Vermont Yankee

The first is the adverse federal court decision CLF (and the State of Vermont) received on Vermont Yankee, the aging nuclear power plant in Vernon, VT. The decision affirmed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s broad authority over safety issues relating to nukes. It  preempted a role for states and handed a major victory to Entergy Corporation.

However, as Anthony Iarrapino points out in this blog post, the fight is far from over. There is a clear role for states in shaping our energy future; in the absence of federal action, states are leading the effort in promoting a clean energy future. Furthermore, as Anthony pointed out in his post, the court said:

“This Court’s decision is based solely upon the relevant admissible facts and the governing law in this case, and it does not purport to resolve or pass judgment on the debate regarding the advantages or disadvantages of nuclear power generation, or its location in this state. Nor does it purport to define or restrict the State’s ability to decline to renew a certificate of public good on any ground not preempted or not violative of federal law, to dictate how a state should choose to allocate its power among the branches of its government, or pass judgment on its choices. The Court has avoided addressing questions of state law and the scope of a state’s regulatory authority that are unnecessary to the resolution of the federal claims presented here.”

Even in the highly “federalized” area of nuclear power there is an undeniable role for states.

Cape Cod

The second is a settlement in principle of our litigation to clean up pollution from sewage on Cape Cod. This is a great step forward – one that  has attracted the focused attention of anti-environmentalists in Congress, as this article attests.

They preposterously allege collusion between environmentalists and the EPA in cases like this to expand federal jurisdiction beyond what Congress authorized in the Clean Water Act, thereby trumping state authority.  However, the federal/state line under the Clean Water Act is about as blurry as they come, in part because the facts relating to pollution and its impacts are extremely complex. As in all cases, the facts matter. Careful, dispassionate assessment of the scientific facts about discharges and pollution, and how the law applies to those facts – not political grandstanding by Members of Congress – is what’s necessary to achieve the visionary goal Congress as a whole committed to decades ago: the elimination of polluting discharges to United States waters, by 1985! It’s time we lived up to that commitment.

There is opportunity in messy, gray areas like the shifting federal/state interface: we can go forward or backward. That is, we can develop sensible allocations of authority between federal and state governments to achieve the public goals behind all of these public initiatives – a healthy environment and a healthy economy, or we can descend into politically motivated mudslinging that obscures the real issues and thwarts real progress.

At CLF we are committed to rational, fact-based discussion of the issues, and prudent forward motion that yields a thriving New England, for generations to come and for all. We know this terrain well. You can count on us to keep working it.

Working with Americans for a Clean Energy Grid and the New England Clean Energy Council we here at the Conservation Law Foundation had the privilege to co-sponsor the New England Clean Energy Transmission Summit.  We were overwhelmed by the massive turnout and tremendous interest from the general press as well as trade press (subscription required).

I will write more about the event in later posts but we wanted to get out into the world the videos of two of the keynote speeches.

Our informative and inspiring lunch speaker was Rep. Ed Markey (D-Malden MA), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Natural Resources Committee and Senior Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The whole video is well worth watching and features some powerful comments about climate, the state of politics and reasons for both fear and hope.

The last panel featured a video message from Bill McKibben who was unable to follow through on his plans to come and speak because of his need to be in Washington to lead efforts to “blow the whistle on Big Oil” and how dirty energy was cheating in Congress.  But give him a listen to understand where he was and the essential imperative facing our energy system, environment, nation and world.

Overwhelming thanks to the folks at Americans for A Clean Energy Grid who did the hard work of managing the event, filming it and now hosting on their website all the videos and powerpoints from the event.

Sleep is a wonderful thing, and it’s necessary for good health. As someone who doesn’t always get enough, I understand people’s concern that wind turbines are disturbing their sleep, or if built, will. Yet the report this week from  the state’s expert review on the science did not find sufficient scientific evidence that wind turbine noise impacts are loud enough or have the right characteristics to physically disturb people’s sleep.

The panel did find limited evidence that some people are annoyed by noise from wind turbines, due to a combination of “the sound itself, the sight of the turbine, and attitude toward the wind turbine project.” In other words, if you are annoyed by the presence of wind turbines, you might also be annoyed by the noise from them. Still, the report disavows claims that wind turbines are associated with adverse health effects.

But, if you are one of the 44% of Americans who have trouble sleeping (according to a Consumer Reports 2008 survey) and you are annoyed by nearby wind turbines, it’s not hard to see how you would link the two together and associate sleep problems with the sound from the turbines. The value of a scientific review is to sort out whether there is sufficient evidence to support claims that the cause (i.e., noise from wind turbines) resulted in the effect (sleep disturbance or health problems). The review by the state’s expert panel did not find sufficient evidence to support the causal link between noise from wind turbines and health problems or disease, debunking the claims of “wind turbine syndrome.”  “Claims that infrasound from wind turbines directly impacts the vestibular system have not been demonstrated scientifically.”

The story is a bit more complicated for sleep disturbance. The report states, “A very loud wind turbine could cause disrupted sleep, particularly in vulnerable populations, at a certain distance, while a very quiet wind turbine would not likely disrupt even the lightest of sleepers at that same distance.” The question becomes, how loud is loud enough? or what is the threshold at which disturbance occurs?, and that answer doesn’t definitively exist.The science tells us some of what we need to know, but still leaves uncertainty about how to ensure that wind turbines don’t disturb poor sleepers. For example, if the disturbance is a function of one’s attitude about wind turbines, it might not be possible to avoid disturbance for some people.

The key question is, what do we do with this information? How does the science help us make sound decisions about siting wind energy? The data do not suggest we stop all development of wind energy facilities because they pose unacceptable health risks. The evidence does not support that. Regardless of how uncomfortable we may be about making decisions under uncertainty, the reality is that we always operate under uncertainty – and there is no avoiding that. We can never be certain about the future. An appropriate path forward for wind energy decision-making is to use the best available information to make siting decisions that address abutters’ concerns, such as incorporating good design principles to minimize any annoying effects. In fact, that is what the expert panel recommends.

The good news is that having a wind turbine in your back yard will not make you sick. The bad news is you might be disturbed by it, and that is an important consideration for decision makers. Those directly impacted by wind siting decisions should have the opportunity to participate in them, to minimize the potential for disturbance. CLF Ventures’ Wind Siting Guide offers guidance on how to engage stakeholders in such decision processes.

Renewable wind energy offers many benefits, including energy independence, reliable pricing, and no ongoing emissions. As we strive to achieve a cleaner energy future, which necessarily includes wind turbines, we will need to take measures to minimize the annoyance impacts of living near them, since they will always be in somebody’s back yard. Robust community processes will help us make better design decisions and minimize the impacts.

Last Friday, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), together with the Buzzards Bay Coalition (BBC), announced they had reached an agreement in principle with EPA to settle two lawsuits regarding nitrogen pollution on Cape Cod. In making the announcement, we released a statement, which can be found here.

In that statement, CLF’s Chris Killian responded to attacks by a group of Congressional Republicans seeking to limit EPA’s authority and advance their anti-environment agenda. You can read the full statement here. In it, Chris said:

“It is our experience that EPA has been a formidable opponent in clean water cases, and to imply that the agency is colluding with environmental organizations to expand its own authority is preposterous,” said Christopher Kilian, director of Conservation Law Foundation’s Clean Water and Healthy Forests program. “These are complicated cases, made more so by developing science and changing environmental stressors, and it is never an easy road to reach a resolution. The real issue is whether the parties are acting in the best interest of those who rely on the resource for their health and well-being. These Congressional leaders seem to suggest that EPA should take a hard line against the interests of citizens and the environment and protect the rights of polluters.”

We at CLF have been involved in the litigation and related issues on an ongoing basis. To help you find CLF’s resources, we’ve included a few curated links below.

Blog posts:

CLF Cleaning up the Cape’s Algae Problem
Clean Water: It’s Your Call or Click

Statements:

Joint Statement Between CLF and Buzzards Bay
CLF and Buzzards Bay Coalition Press EPA for Action in Cape Clean Up

News coverage:

The Cost of Doing Nothing: Toxic Algae Bloom Hurts Tourism, Changes Senator Inhofe’s Tune

Court Filings:

CLF, Inc., et al., v. Lisa P. Jackson, et al. (Complaint, September 19, 2011)

August 25, 2010: CLF, Inc., et al., v. Lisa P. Jackson, et al. (Complaint, August 25, 2010)

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to be in touch!

• “An Inconvenient Truth About Gulf of Maine Cod” – Jud Crawford of the Pew Environment Group discusses Gulf of Maine cod and fisheries science.
• “Local Oysters Deliver a Taste of Place” – We’ve rounded up some recent oyster-related items readers might enjoy. Learn about oyster culture in several regions around the U.S. and how oystermen keep oysters alive in root cellars over the winter.