Have Your Lobster and Eat It, Too

By Trevor Corson / Special To The Tab

 

Lobster love is going mainstream: Executives at Whole Foods Market, the largest purveyor of natural and organic foods in the nation, have reevaluated the entire process of lobster acquisition, transport and sale. The company has announced that it will stop selling live lobsters because it cannot ensure that the animals are being treated with compassion.

For tens of thousands of years we knew, firsthand, where our food came from. During the past century, 99.9 percent of that experience has vanished. Lobster is one of the few foods that most Americans can still purchase alive and kicking. Apart from hunting and fishing, it is the last link between our kitchens and the great outdoors.

I belong to a new demographic called ethical eaters. We want our food to have been happy in death. At the same time, we want it so fresh and unprocessed that it still tastes, and nourishes us, like it is full of life. That’s why I love buying live lobster. I am happy knowing that the lobster has lived at least six or seven years in the ocean. Most other meat at the store comes from a domesticated animal, and fish increasingly come from farms. Lobster is one of the last true free-range meats.

Some people feel that the entire process of capturing, storing, transporting and cooking lobsters cannot possibly be accomplished in a humane fashion – period.

The fact is that trapping lobsters is as humane as fishing gets. The animals crawl into a wire cage, eat a free lunch and sit around for a while. We know from video studies that many of the lobsters then climb right back out of the trap. We also know from scientific surveys that most lobstermen along the rocky coast from Gloucester to Downeast Maine release a lot of their lobsters back into the ocean – young ones, old ones and ones with eggs – and that those animals continue to thrive and repopulate coastal waters, despite their elevator rides to the surface and their swims back to the bottom. Lobster transport is similarly civilized. Because consumers have traditionally demanded that lobsters be kept alive, distributors already have a strong incentive to treat the animals with care. Nova Scotia-based Clearwater Seafoods, one of the top lobster distributors in North America, has constructed elaborate seawater condominiums at its three plants, tended by the company’s own biologists, so that lobsters can rest in cool, stress-free solitude and regain energy before their trek to the consumer.

And storage? It is true that adult lobsters dislike spending much time together in close quarters – unless, of course, a male and female have completed their courtship dances and decide to move in together to mate. But lobsters communicate by smell instead of sound, and studies at the Marine Biological Laboratory on Cape Cod suggest that in crowded conditions, the lobsters’ noses get desensitized to stimulation and they calm down and stop bothering one another. The tanks are also kept cold; the lobsters adapt by slowing their metabolism, reducing activity and lowering their food intake, just as they do in the wild, which further reduces stress.

That leaves cooking. It’s the thornier problem, and what most upsets people. Unlike fish, [lobsters] can survive out of water long enough to make it to the kitchen still kicking.

In England, scientists have invented a new machine designed to kill lobsters with minimum pain prior to cooking. It is called the CrustaStun, and went into service in the United Kingdom last year. It comes in two sizes. The big one looks something like those zappers they put your suitcase in at the airport. Lobsters ride a conveyor belt into a 110-volt jolt that electrocutes them. The small version looks like a stainless-steel lobster coffin, and executes one animal at a time. Both get a humane stamp of approval.

Shucks Maine Lobster, run by Maine entrepreneur John Hathaway, is one of several companies employing a different sort of device: an 80,000-pound, 16-foot-tall machine that uses technology adapted from U.S. Army research. Hathaway loads a wide vertical cylinder with 200 pounds of live lobster at a time. A steel oval framework slides into place over the cylinder. He presses a button, massive pumps whir, and water inside the cylinder is compressed to a pressure more than five times that of the deepest ocean trenches. Without any heat, the lobsters die and their meat separates from the shell. The lobsters are then hand shucked, vacuum sealed, and the packages re-pressurized to kill pathogens. The result: fresh, raw lobster meat with a refrigerated shelf life of up to 30 days and no additives or preservatives – similar to chicken. Chefs love the product, and supermarkets are currently considering it for retail sale. Whether this system will get a humane stamp of approval remains to be seen.

I welcome the end of boiling lobsters alive. But I also fear the impending loss of live lobster, and with it the end of a beloved New England tradition. I do not want to hand over my last chance to make moral choices about my dinner to automated executioners. So for now, I will continue to do what I have always done. I will put the live lobster on ice for 15 minutes to slow its metabolism and neural activity. Then I will give thanks to the lobster and thrust the point of my knife between its legs and cut down through the head, splitting the front half of its body. The animal will die instantly, and I can boil it without causing further pain. This method, while not for the squeamish, does get a humane stamp of approval.

Adapted from Boiling Point, Boston Magazine, July 13, 2006, with permission

Trevor Corson is the author of “The Secret Life of Lobsters: How Fishermen and Scientists Are Unraveling the Mysteries of Our Favorite Crustacean” (HarperCollins, June 2004). He has posted instructions on the humane way to kill lobsters at secretlifeoflobsters.com.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Potential new MWRA members

By Robert L. Zimmerman, Jr ./ Special To The Tab

 

Water, growth and the MWRA

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority is responsible for distributing water to 42 greater Boston communities. The reservoirs that provide this water, Quabbin and Wachusetts, and surrounding watershed lands are under the stewardship of the state Department of Conservation and Recreation. In creating the MWRA, the legislature split off responsibility for the management of the natural resource from the delivery of this water.

Thanks to aggressive leak repair and conservation in the 1980s, MWRA communities are using 100 million gallons less daily than 25 years ago. Today MWRA is selling 225 mgd of wholesale water to local water departments of its member cities and towns, down from a high of 342 mgd. The MWRA believes it now has extra water available and it is looking for new customers. Expensive projects like the Deer Island sewage plant and the 17-mile MetroWest Tunnel between routes I-495 and 128 have left the MWRA with a pile of debt. Funded by bonds, the debt service will continue to rise through 2011 and then taper off.

About 60 percent of the MWRA’s budget currently goes to pay off this debt. The MWRA needs more revenue to meet these debts and rising energy costs. Double-digit increases in existing customer water rates are projected over the next several years as these costs rise.

Consequently, the MWRA Board, in a major shift, is proposing to treat water as a commodity, expand the MWRA service area and actively market this water to new communities. The sale of more water would purportedly help reduce projected increases in wholesale water rates through admission fees and by spreading the costs among more cities and towns. Additionally, a growing number of communities between the Route 128 and Interstate 495 beltway face water shortages over the coming decade. New MWRA supplies could help alleviate the problem. However, making more water available to new customers triggers a host of concerns that need to be evaluated carefully by the MWRA Board, state regulators and the public. It is unlikely that new water sales will materially reduce MWRA bond debt in the near term, or significantly curtail the cost of water for current customers. MWRA estimates that even if all of the 20 communities it has identified as potential customers (including Holliston, Medway, Franklin and Milford in the Charles watershed) joined – a dubious supposition given high MWRA fees and rates and lack of enthusiasm by these towns – rate increases would only shrink by 3 to 4 percent.

Before selling more water the MWRA needs to revisit the “safe yield,” or the maximum, dependable withdrawals that can safely be made from MWRA reservoirs without damaging the water resource. The original methodology for determining this did not sufficiently take into account the water necessary for downstream flow and fisheries’ health. The re-determination of safe yield must also consider the effects of global warming, as well as the growth needs of the existing MWRA service area.

New sources of water spur new growth. The MWRA water sales will play a major role in where and how growth occurs in eastern Massachusetts. Stoughton, a recent MWRA member, has experienced an explosion of new development. Water sales need to be paired with Smart Growth approaches, which reduce sprawl and open space losses and promote denser, low-impact development. The metropolitan area needs to encourage mixed-use village density zones, transportation-oriented development, and the redevelopment of brownfields for commercial and residential uses. Linking the sale of new water to a Smart Growth agenda can help create the kind of housing and amenities that will make Massachusetts attractive to industry, stabilize housing prices, and reduce the number of cars on the road.

While MWRA water can help alleviate the stress on water resources in the Ipswich and the upper Charles basins, selling water to communities without adequate planning is not an environmental benefit and could backfire, by enabling low density, high impact residential development, which uses vastly greater quantities of water, and paving over more ground, which prevents aquifer recharge.

Communities seeking to join the MWRA will want to buy the water during the summer, when local supplies are most stressed. There would be little reason for these communities to conserve water or to build the kind of stormwater and wastewater infrastructure that will replenish aquifers while restoring river flow and reducing flash flooding during rainstorms.

Selling water based on demand alone will result in greater sprawl and unchecked development in the wrong places. Before expanding, a full environmental impact review, like that required under state law for any major project, should first be performed to analyze all aspects of expansion.

Robert L. Zimmerman, Jr. is the executive director of the Charles River Watershed Association.

These are communities in proximity to MWRA that may have water deficits now or in the future, and could consider MWRA as an option to supplement current water sources (list does not include communities that are actively pursuing admission to MWRA).

·       Boston Harbor South:

·       Hingham/Hull

·       Sharon

·       Ipswich River Basin:

·       Salem/Beverly

·       Ipswich

·       Wenham

·       Topsfield

·       Danvers/Middleton

·       Lynnfield Center W.D.

·       Upper Charles:

·       Franklin

·       Holliston

·       Medway

·       Milford

·       SUASCO:

·       Ashland

·       Hopkinton

·       Nashua:

·       Boylston

·       Lancaster

·       Sterling

·       West Boylston

·       Connecticut:

·       South Hadley Fire District #2

 

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp

Water conservation

By Rebecca Scibek and Margaret Van Deusen/ Special To The Tab

 

Although it may seem like there is always plenty of rain in Massachusetts, especially this past May and June, water is a finite resource. Between 70 and 75 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered with water, but only 1 percent of that is available for human use. Despite recent heavy rains, groundwater levels will soon begin to drop as trees and plants take up water and higher temperatures increase evaporation rates.

During the summer, the water in the Charles River is made up almost entirely of baseflow, meaning water that flows into the river from groundwater. Little recharge of aquifers occurs in the summer and, consequently, there is less groundwater available to feed the Charles and its tributaries.

This relative lack of groundwater is mainly due to man-made changes to the water cycle, which prevent water from infiltrating into the ground and recharging aquifers. Buildings, parking lots and roads all prevent rainwater from getting back into the ground to replenish groundwater stores. Newton’s municipal storm drain system, which collects stormwater in a centralized drain system and discharges it through outfalls to the river, also short-circuits the natural hydrological cycle and prevents recharge.

Fortunately, small measures add up to big water savings, and each of us can help protect our water resources. Water conservation helps to lower utility costs, protect our rivers, and preserve our water supply for future generations.

Knowledge of water conservation techniques has grown dramatically during the past decade. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently created WaterSense, a program working with water suppliers, product manufacturers and retailers to promote water-efficient products and practices. The products, from front-loading washers to weather-based irrigation systems, are now widely available.

Using water wisely is becoming increasingly important in Massachusetts. The MA Department of Conservation and Recreation has been working to update the state’s Water Conservation Standards, first developed in 1992. In September the Water Resources Commission is expected to adopt the Standards, which set water conservation targets for water managers and users.

These Standards, designed to help citizens and water suppliers use water efficiently, are central to the state’s efforts to ensure the long-term health and sustainability of our water resources.Water conservation will help Newton residents to control burgeoning water bills.

More than 60 percent of the public water supply in Massachusetts is used for domestic purposes, so improvements in residential water efficiency will have dramatic results. Here are some recommendations included in the Standards:

·      Work toward using no more than 65 gallons of water per person per day, indoor and outdoor water use combined

·      Check pipes, toilets, and fixtures regularly for leaks, which are costly for you and the environment- a faucet dripping once per second wastes 2,700 gallons per year!

·      Sweep driveways, walks, and decks rather than hosing them off

·      Wash cars with a bucket and sponge (with biodegradable soap), not a hose

·      Install water-efficient plumbing fixtures, such as low-flow showerheads and toilets, and faucet aerators

·      Minimize use of garbage disposals, and compost instead, to save water and provide organic material for gardens

·      Cover swimming pools when not in use to prevent evaporation.

·      Water use can double in the summertime, mostly due to lawn watering. Here are some simple tips:

·      Water lawns once a week and only before 8 a.m. or after 6 p.m, when the sun is low and winds are light. Watering too often and too much encourages grass to produce shallow roots

·      Plantdrought-tolerant grasses and native species, avoiding water-hungry ornamentals

·      Recognize that a healthy lawn naturally becomes dormant during times of drought -grass will turn yellow or brown, but will become green again when the rains return

·      Redirect gutter downspouts away from pavement and onto grass and gardens where water can infiltrate into the ground. Use rain barrels or cisterns to collect water for irrigation

·      For automatic irrigation systems, use the best available moisture sensing technology to ensure systems operate only when necessary, and keep them properly maintained.

Rebecca Scibek is the volunteer coordinator/office manager, and Margaret Van Deusen is the deputy director and general counsel for the CRWA.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

From Drought to Flood

By Nigel Pickering and Kate Bowditch//Special To The Tab

 

Last month in this column, the emphasis was on the spring drought, the effects of dry weather on the Charles River, and measures that homeowners could be taking to try to keep water on their own property. This month, the story seems to be the opposite, as many in Massachusetts have experienced the worst flooding in many decades. Yet the drought and the flood are really one and the same story: the natural environment and the human environment are bound together, each dependent on the other.

The storm systems that battered New England from May 9-15 dumped more than 15 inches of rain on some Massachusetts communities. In Newton, there was over 5.5 inches of rain in just three days. As of this writing, there has already been over 10 inches of rain in Newton this May. The historical average for the month is 3.3 inches.

The effects of a deluge such as the one in May are dramatic. Rainfall becomes runoff as soils are saturated, rivers swell to overtop their banks, and floodwaters cause millions of dollars in material damage. Fortunately, in this storm and flood, few lives were claimed. The Charles River never actually flooded, though many streets, parks and basements were inundated by runoff and rising groundwater.

Other river systems, and the communities in those watersheds, were hard hit, however, and more than a week after the rains stopped, there are still flooded sections of many towns. So what caused some areas to have more floods than others? Two factors that affect flooding are basin characteristics, and rainfall patterns. Both of these factors came into play in the last storm. Both the rainfall pattern and the local basin characteristics were extremely variable, causing some areas to have the worst flooding on record, while others had only moderate flooding.

The most important basin characteristic that impacts flooding in this area is ‘basin storage.’ Basin storage consists of rainwater that infiltrates into the soil or groundwater and runoff that fills wetlands, dams, or other man-made stormwater controls. Think of basin storage as holding capacity: it is the amount of water an area can hold before it runs out into the main river channel. An area with a lot of basin storage will not flood as fast as an area with little basin storage.

Rainfall distribution affects the local rainfall amount and intensity. Even in an area with a lot of basin storage, high intensity rainfall can overwhelm the infiltration capacity of the soil, stormwater conveyance structures and river channels, causing high flows and potential flooding.

This particular storm was not evenly distributed, causing large variations in both the rainfall volume and intensity. Radar estimates of the rainfall pattern in Massachusetts and surrounding areas show that northeastern Massachusetts had 8-16 inches of rainfall compared to about 4-8 inches in the Charles River watershed near Boston. Since the rain all fell in a period of about 5 days, not only were the amounts different, the intensities were also highly variable from one area to the other.

The resulting streamflows varied widely and can be measured by the ‘return period’ of the flow. For example, a 10-year return period is one that will occur, on average once in 10 years. The Charles River came within inches of flood stage but only reached a 2-year return period. In contrast, the return period for the Merrimack at Lowell was 40 years and the whole Ipswich River was over a 100-year return period.

Some of the muted streamflow response in the Charles might be attributed to the extensive area of wetlands in Cutler Park on the Newton/Needham border, and those on the Medfield/Millis border. In the late 1960s, Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA) was instrumental in working with the Army Corps of Engineers to permanently protect 8,103 acres of wetlands called the Charles River Natural Valley Storage Area. Riparian wetlands rapidly expand to store floodwaters then slowly release the water back to the river after the storm. This wetland storage project serves as a nationwide model for natural flood protection.

In urbanized areas, basin storage can be severely reduced, increasing flooding problems. Impervious surfaces like rooftops, driveways, parking lots and roads reduce evaporation, soil storage, and travel times. The double-edged effect of impervious surfaces is that is disconnects rainfall from ground water, thus creating more larger peaks and runoff volume (floods) while reducing recharge and base flow. The result is more storm flow with less base flow, that is, more of the wrong kind of water.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the same actions that CRWA encourages communities and homeowners to adopt to cope with drought will help reduce the impacts of flooding: reduce paved surfaces; let rainfall percolate into the ground; direct runoff to vegetated areas; keep water out of pipes; protect wetlands and open space; plant more trees. Global warming will likely cause more droughts, and more floods. We need to design our environment so we can live with both.

Nigel Pickering, PhD, Senior Engineer and Project Manager at CRWA, is a computer modeling and mapping expert. Kate Bowditch, MA, a Senior Environmental Scientist at CRWA, is a hydrologist. 

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Something’s fishy

By Michelle Portman/Special To The Tab

 

You might want to get a membership to the New England Aquarium. There are fish there that chances are you’ll never see in the wild. Not because they thrive in habitats far away, in exotic places and tropical climes, but because people have fished them to death. Another place you might be able to see these fish is served on a plate garnished with spices, herbs and lemon juice at dozens of popular restaurants. How is it that the fish we love to dine on are dead in the water (seas), yet always available for the right price at our neighborhood eatery?

It is clear that for at least the past decade, fisheries, especially those in New England, have been plagued by tragedy and controversy. Many commercial fish populations, such as cod, flounder and Atlantic salmon, have been culled to such an extent that it is questionable whether they will ever recovery.

Government has tried to step in with policies and regulations aimed at stabilizing and recovering fisheries. Ten years ago, the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act, also called the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), was signed into law. It resulted in a myriad of measures to regulate fishing activities- quotas by species, size limits, gear restrictions, seasonal fishing ground closures, etc. Yet these measures are controversial because of their effects on fishermen, the fishing industry and overall marine biodiversity.

A recent national report on ocean policy, funded by the Pew Trust, takes issue with policies promulgated by regional Fisheries Management Councils (8 in number). Too often, council decisions have emphasized short-term commodity production, i.e., focusing on maximizing catch, revenues and employment rather than sustaining natural systems that support wild fish populations and healthy ecosystems. Overall, they rely on scientific uncertainty to justify risk-prone management decisions rather than apply a precautionary approach. Particularly problematic are the adoption of short-sighted single species management techniques that neglect long-term goals for fisheries and ecosystems.

With all the threats to fish – loss of habitat, overfishing, declining ocean water quality and ineffective regulation – how is it that we are finding plenty of fish on the menu of our favorite restaurants? For the most part the answer is: aquaculture.

There are many different modes of aquaculture – for shell fish, for freshwater fish and seafood – making it difficult to generalize regarding its impacts. For most off-shore cultivation, thousands of fish live their short lives in crowded cages sunk below the surface in deep ocean waters. Negative effects involve the concentration of their waste products that causes eutrophication (nutrient overload) in surrounding waters. Also the density at which the fish are kept make them more susceptible to disease and parasites. (To sea lice, for example, a fish farm is an all-you-can-eat buffet.) Pesticides and antibiotics given to the fish soon find their way into the environment with deleterious impacts on marine water quality and habitat.

These substances don’t make “farmed fish” any more healthy for the human consumer either. A recent news article on farmed fish in the UK, called Scottish farmed salmon “the most contaminated product on the supermarket shelves”.

Another problem is that of escapees. Farm-hatched fish can escape into the wild and dilute the gene pool of healthier, “smarter” wild specimens, potentially impacting the capability of some species to spawn properly, to grow to adulthood and to be resistant to certain parasites and disease.

This past April, the U.S. Senate heard testimony on offshore aquaculture. A bill backed by the Bush administration is being debated that would expand, support and regulate large-scale fish farming in American coastal waters. Supporters argue fish farms would enhance fish production and reduce seasonal variations in availability. Opponents worry they would add cut-rate competition against existing ocean fishers, flooding the market with low-quality, low-price fish.

These debates leave the average fish-lover wondering whether off-shore and deep-sea cages are a sensible alternative to wisely managing our culling of wild ocean fish. Arguably, the solution lies with the consumer. People can refrain from eating species that are threatened. They can create a demand for certain products raised or fished sustainably. Many folks want to do the right thing when buying or ordering fish, but don’t know how. Certainly, the different ways fish are raised and/or caught makes things confusing.

A full discussion of the most environmentally-friendly fish to consume is beyond the scope of this article, but why re-invent the wheel? When I buy fish at the market or order in a restaurant, I consult my Seafood Watch guide. This is a little folding card that I carry in my wallet. It is published by the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Regional and national pocket-sized guides can be downloaded from their Internet site: www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp. There is plenty of information on this site about how to be a wise fish consumer and plenty more on what’s happening to fisheries and fish.

Remember, despite what we see on our menus, all is not well with our regional and global fisheries. For the sake of fish, and our appetites, precaution is advised.

Michelle Portman is a Ph.D. candidate studying marine conservation policy at UMass-Boston and she works as an environmental analyst.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp

Learning to live with less water

By Kate Bowditch/ Special To The Tab

 

 

With the beauty of spring bursting into bloom, you may not have noticed, but Massachusetts is in a serious dry spell. With almost no spring rain, and no winter snowpack to provide spring melt, we are well out of our normal seasonal water cycle. According to the National Weather Service, this year we had the driest March on record in many parts of New England, and river flows in the Charles are as low as they have ever been at this time of year.

The most visible and immediate impacts of spring drought are in the river, where the usual spring flush is simply not happening. Fish and other aquatic species that rely on spring’s high, fast flows are instead struggling in flow levels that are normal in July. Wetlands that are normally full of water in March and April are already drying out. For people who enjoy spring kayaking and fishing on the Charles, the low flows have had an obvious and dramatic impact, especially in the free-flowing sections of the river.

<!–[if gte vml 1]>

Low flow, spring 2006, Cheesecake Brook

<![endif]–>Hopefully, this spring drought will not last through the summer, and the stressed river, wetlands and urban forest will rebound. But climate change and development patterns are putting more and more stress on the water-based environment, and we will have to adapt our habits, practices and expectations accordingly. We need a built environment that protects resources, and is flexible enough to withstand change. Over time, that means reducing our reliance on traditional engineering such as curb and gutter, pipes and concrete channels, and embracing softer, greener infrastructure. Nature provides some of the best models for coping with changing weather and climate conditions, and we need to emulate as many of those models as possible.

The Charles River Watershed Association advocates for “keeping water local,” and provides suggestions for managing water on sites of all sizes and uses, whether a parking lot, an industrial facility, or a single family home. The basic concept is to design a site so it works as if it were undeveloped. By approximating nature’s own design and function we will protect not only the natural environment but our built environment as well.

Homes, and the local environment generally, can be made more resilient and better able to cope with less water. Think of each property as one small patch of land that needs to sustain itself with its own resources, and you will begin to see possibilities. Try to recharge most rainwater into the ground; direct runoff over vegetated areas to slow and clean the flows; allow water to pool and collect in low wet areas that are planted with wetland species; save rooftop runoff in a cistern or barrel system to use for outdoor watering needs; use native plants that are suited to a fluctuating climate and do not need to be watered.

A landscape that keeps rainfall on-site is good for our rivers, ponds and wetlands. It is beneficial to property owners and to communities when landscapes are designed to withstand dry periods as well as heavy rains, and with reduced need for fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation. There are many good sources of landscaping information, such as the fact sheets available on the EPA website: www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts. Some people might consider improving or creating wetlands on their property, as suggested in a recent webcast series sponsored by the Izaak Walton League of America http://itre.ncsu.edu/cte/TechTransfer/Teleconferences/iwla2006.asp

Kate Bowditch, Senior Environmental Scientist and Project Manager at Charles River Watershed Association, is a hydrologist. She earned her MA in Geography/Water Resources Management from BU.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Keeping stormwater out of the Charles

By Anna Eleria / Special To The Tab

 

Stormwater pollution, also referred to as non-point source pollution, is one of the most significant sources of pollution of the Charles River today. CRWA is taking the lead in reducing it with a new volunteer program called the Charles River “Find It and Fix It”

Stormwater Program.

<!–[if gte vml 1]>

Dave Kaplan, CRWA scientist, doing a Charles River shoreline survey in Newton

<![endif]–>For the next two and a half years with funding from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, the “Find It and Fix It” Program will recruit and train volunteers to assist in inspecting the river through visual surveying and water quality monitoring in order to identify areas in need of repair.  Their reports will direct CRWA scientists to areas with pressing problems and help pinpoint the areas needing further study or initiate immediate calls for action so that municipalities and landowners can fix the problems.

CRWA volunteers from Newton and other watershed communities will be conducting “shoreline surveys” or visual monitoring along a 45-mile river corridor from Farm Road in Sherborn to New Charles River Dam in Boston.  This spring, river surveyors will assess the river’

s baseline physical conditions and identify current or potential problems in the river, along its banks, and within the riverfront area.  Volunteers will survey by canoeing or walking a half to two-mile stretch of river looking for areas of environmental degradation, erosion, and non-point source pollution.  They will note the characteristics of the water, such as color, odor, and flow, in-stream and shoreline vegetation, nearby land use, and fisheries and wildlife habitat conditions.  They will photograph their survey area, and they will map and characterize stormwater pipes discharging to the river.

Finding every source of pollution is a big job.  The visual survey information will provide the basis for CRWA’

s next steps in dealing with stormwater pollution.  After compiling and reviewing this essential baseline data of river conditions, our staff will identify and prioritize the areas of most concern and determine the next steps for addressing problem areas, which may include water quality monitoring by CRWA. 

The water quality monitoring will allow us to focus on wet weather problems and specific sources of pollution, including stormwater pipes and other source-specific sampling locations areas, using a new set of ears, noses and eyes to pinpoint problems.  Pollutants of most concern in the urbanized Charles River watershed include- but are not limited to- bacteria and viruses from combined sewage, waterfowl waste and pet waste, sediment and sand from winter de-icing applications and erosion, gasoline and oil and grease from vehicles, fuel dispensing stations and vehicle maintenance stations, and nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, from fertilizers, detergents and wastewater. 

The ‘fix it’

step of the program involves sharing the results of our shoreline survey and water quality monitoring work with municipalities and other responsible parties and working closely with them to develop specific remediation measures, such as removing illicit connections to stormwater pipes, reducing use of pollutant products or equipment that generate pollutants, implementing stormwater best management practices, educating the public about stormwater impacts to the river and recommending measures to reduce them.

CRWA’

s extensive monitoring efforts, including the volunteer monthly monitoring program, habitat assessments and fish studies, have shown that stormwater pollution causes degradation of water quality, wildlife and fisheries habitat, recreational uses and aesthetic beauty.  With help from a network of more than 70 volunteers, we monitor the health of the river on a monthly basis at 37 sites along the 80-mile long river. 

Our data indicate that the river’

s water quality is generally very good over its entire length when no rain falls prior to sampling. However, during and after a rain event, water quality conditions in the river degrade and the river violates the state bacterial standards for swimming and boating.  The problem is acute in Newton and other middle and lower watershed communities where urbanization and development invariably mean more impervious surfaces (i.e., buildings, streets, parking lots, driveways, etc.).  This causes rainwater to flow over paved surfaces, instead of recharging into the ground, picking up manmade pollutants before flowing into storm drains that discharge into the Charles River and other bodies of water.

“The Find It and Fix It”

program will get us one step closer to achieving our goal of a swimmable-fishable river.

Prospective volunteers should contact Pallavi Mande pmande@crwa.org, (781) 788-0007 x 232 or see www.charlesriver.org/projects/METwMyRWA/METFF.html. For tips on what you can do to keep the river clean, see www.crwa.org/projects/stormwater/bleedsmallbrochure%20FINAL.pdf

Anna Eleria, MS, CRWA Engineer, manages the “Find It and Fix It”

Program and the Charles River Targeted Watershed Initiative Projects

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

CRWA creates a water budget

By Nigel Pickering/ Special To The Tab

 

Charles River Watershed Association is finding a way to meet human water demands while preserving water resources.

CRWA was selected to perform a statewide water budget analysis for the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs for 351 towns in Massachusetts. Our ground-breaking work in water budgeting began in the Charles River watershed, but is applicable in other watersheds as well. A water budget, comparable to balancing a checkbook, accounts for the amount of water that enters or leaves a watershed while quantifying the human impact on streamflow. This project, which commenced in November 2005 and will continue until June 2007, dovetails with CRWA’s flow trading efforts. Statewide maps of streamflow stress will aid in prioritizing restoration efforts and could form the basis for initiating a trading program using water banking.

For several years CRWA scientists have calculated water use patterns for all the months and all sub-watersheds ranging in size from one to five square miles. This water budget approach includes water lost from well withdrawals, transfers via water supply and wastewater pipes, and evaporation from irrigation. Also accounted for is reduced recharge from impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots, buildings) as well as flows returned to the ground from septic systems. CRWA scientists compare these water losses against data on natural streamflow in each sub-watershed to determine the level of human impact on rivers and streams. CRWA maps these results, which graphically depict river flow variations from month-to-month and the magnitude and timing of the human impact on all the sub-watersheds.

CRWA applied this specialized methodology to the Town of Blackstone to help prioritize recharge sites since the Blackstone River sub-watershed is impacted by water withdrawals, a large amount of impervious area, and wastewater losses. The town’s water budget calculation identified the Lower Mill River and the Quick River as the most stressed sub-watersheds in the town, primarily because the public water wells are in, or near, their sub-watersheds. The impacts of impervious surfaces and sewering were greatest in the spring since high groundwater levels aid infiltration into sewer pipes, and runoff from impervious surfaces is not absorbed by adjacent soil. The impacts of pumping and irrigation peak in the summer. Streamflow impacts were greater in the summer when streamflows are naturally low. But with more development there will be more withdrawals, irrigation losses, impervious areas, and sewered areas, which will further reduce streamflows in the town.

Newton is different from Blackstone in a number of ways. Newton does not have any public water supply wells so there is no direct local impact in any sub-basin from a public water withdrawal well. There are a number of small golf course wells but their cumulative withdrawal volume is small. The impact of the evaporation losses from irrigated lawns is likely to be somewhat larger because, even though both communities have similar summer-to-winter ratios of water use, there are many more residential lots in Newton. Newton is on the MWRA water supply and sewer system so more water leaves as wastewater than is supplied. This apparent anomaly is because groundwater and stormwater leak into the sewer system and augment the outgoing wastewater flow. The net amount of water lost could be fairly large because of Newton’s large population. Newton is also more highly paved than Blackstone so more recharge is blocked from entering the groundwater.

In summary, most of Newton is likely to have a negative water budget or a net deficit of water, thus contributing to lower streamflows during the dry periods. More exact analysis of Newton’s water budget will be performed by CRWA in the next year under EOEA’s new Statewide Water Budgets Analysis program.

Nigel Pickering, Senior Engineer and Project Manager, is CRWA’s computer modeling and mapping expert. He earned his PhD in Agricultural Engineering from Cornell University.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

The importance of oysters

By Peter Sun/ Special To The Tab

 

 

Oysters have been a popular food since ancient times. Roman emperors paid for them by their weight in gold. The Romans were so enthusiastic about these marvelous mollusks that they marched thousands of slaves through rugged terrain all the way to the English Channel to gather them. While oysters have had a reputation as a delicacy for many centuries, we have only more recently begun to appreciate their environmental benefits. Scientific research has shown that oysters are voracious filter feeders. They consume large quantities of algae and excess nutrients – up to 5 liters per hour. They play a major role in maintaining the ecological balance in the waters where they grow.

Take the Chesapeake Bay, for example. Today, the water is often turbid, carrying large amounts of sediment and phytoplankton (microscopic organisms), which limits the biodiversity of the bay. However, if we go back approximately 40 years, <!–[if gte vml 1]>

NNHS Biology students Alissa Becker, left, Peter Sun and Joy Huang, right, at Whole Foods Market with their subject.

<![endif]–>we know that nature provided 3-4 million bushels of oysters annually in the bay, which was in great shape ecologically. These oysters filtered all of the bay’s water in a mere 4 to 5 days. During this filtering process the oysters use their cilia to strain out microscopic plants and to wrap whatever they cannot digest in mucus, which they then transport to the mouth. The mouth then does the job of breaking down the material, which moves to the stomach and is eventually expelled as feces or pseudofeces (material excreted, but not through the gut) that contribute to the sediment of the bay. Oysters consume phytoplankton so rapidly that several large oysters can clear an aquarium filled with green water within hours. When oysters strain out microscopic plants in the bay, they create room for other organisms to survive, thus maintaining the ecological balance that fosters species diversity in the bay.

Sadly, the ecology of Chesapeake Bay is now very unhealthy. Oysters are nearly absent from the bay. They have been reduced to one percent of their population of 40 years ago. This is because enormous quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus (over 300 million pounds) are deposited in Chesapeake Bay each year in the form of man-made fertilizers. These provide a tremendous source of nutrients for phytoplankton and algae. When these phytoplankton and algae are overabundant they gather to form large green masses that block the light that would normally filter to the bottom and allow healthy aquatic vegetation like seaweed and ell grass to grow. The excessive phytoplankton absorbs enormous amounts of oxygen very rapidly in a given location, causing anoxia, which means that no oxygen is left to circulate in the water. The result is devastating; it kills off many animals that require oxygen to live. During the summer, when the temperatures are high and there is little vertical mixing of water in the bay, the warmer water remains afloat because it becomes less dense, while the cooler, denser water remains at the bottom. The water at the bottom can be anoxic for many weeks. This destroys many or even most of the living organisms, such as fish, leaving acres of the bay’

s bottom barren.

How did such a healthy bay change so dramatically in just 40 years? There are many answers to this question, but they all boil down to this: humans have been over-harvesting a most precious natural resource. There is historical evidence that the over-harvesting of Chesapeake Bay goes back 140 years, to about 1865. Oyster harvest dropped precipitously between 1890 and 1905; even so, 12-15 million bushels of oysters were still harvested during that time period. Since 1905, the oyster harvest has declined from 5 million bushels annually to a meager 100,000 bushels in 1993. There is clear evidence that it is the drastic decline in oysters that is responsible for the drastic decline in the water quality of Chesapeake Bay.

Fortunately local governments have recognized the nature and the severity of the problem. Laws have been passed to limit the over-harvesting of oysters. For example, the 1927 10 Percent Shell Tax Law required oyster processors to make 10 percent of their shucked shell available for state use in planting, a method to create new oyster beds. The 1953 55 Percent Shell Tax, increasing the tax on oyster processors by 50 percent, was passed to slow the market demand for oysters. The 1972 Moratorium on New Leases suspended awards of new leases of oyster grounds so that the over-harvested oyster grounds could recover. Although these steps taken by governments were inadequate, they were milestones that acknowledged past mistakes and attempted to rectify them. Such laws, when combined with efforts to raise public awareness of the problem, are ways to help bring back the oysters that are so essential to the heath of the environment.

Oysters are much more than a human delicacy. They perform amazing environmental services, not only in Chesapeake Bay but also in many coastal areas all over the world. We humans should do whatever we can to preserve this delicate and delectable creature that quietly works environmental wonders.

Peter Sun was assisted by NNHS classmates Alissa Becker and Joy Huang in writing this article as part of an Environmental Service Project in Zachary Snow’

s Biology class.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Throwing water away

By Robert Zimmerman, Jr./ Special To The Tab

 

Massachusetts is facing serious water shortages in spite of receiving an average of 45 inches of rainfall a year, or nearly 6.5 trillion gallons of precipitation – enough water to fill 12,922,465 Olympic-sized swimming pools. What is happening to all that water? The scientists and water policy experts at Charles River Watershed Association, located at 190 Park Street in Weston, are studying this complex problem and seeking sustainable solutions.

Groundwater (water in underground aquifers) and surface water (streams, rivers, and lakes, which are slowly replenished by aquifers) in the area surrounding the Charles River have been steadily decreasing for years. Many streams now go dry in summer months, and water use limits are being imposed by some municipalities. The water shortages are primarily the result of the “engineered water cycle” created through uncontrolled development, improper stormwater management, and current wastewater disposal and treatment techniques.

The I-495 technology corridor, one of the fastest growing areas in the state, is a perfect example of what is happening. Land is being rapidly developed, buildings and roads constructed, and traffic congestion is worsening. High-impact development creates more demand for water, to be used in businesses and industries. But the real problem is that the increase in impervious surfaces – roads, parking lots, sidewalks, driveways and buildings – prevent rainwater from infiltrating into the ground and recharging aquifers. In Boston, groundwater infiltration “losses” of stormwater have more than doubled in the past 20 years – in other words, half as much rain now gets through the soil and into the groundwater.

When water cannot percolate through the ground, filtering as it goes down into the aquifer, more contaminants enter the surface waters and negatively impact aquatic habitats. Rainwater is polluted through coming into contact with oil, gasoline, and other substances on roads and buildings, and it is discharged through elaborate drain systems to nearby water bodies. Additionally, during heavy rains, sewer pipes are often designed to overflow and discharge sewage waste directly to rivers and coastal areas.

Our approach to wastewater disposal is another element in the water crisis. Instead of treating wastewater from homes and businesses and then returning it to where it came from, it is piped away to be treated, and often discharged to the ocean or a river. Treating water initially helps reduce local water pollution impacts, but in the long term this results in substantial water loss on the local level. Another problem is in the actual sewage infrastructure – as pipes age, they crack and begin to draw in clean groundwater, which is prone to move into the pipes because the water inside pipes moves much faster than groundwater. On average, about 60% of the wastewater treated at the MWRA’s Deer Island treatment plant is clean ground and storm water that has entered the sewer system through leaks, sump pumps, or roof leaders.

There are two fundamental problems with current approaches to water use and water engineering. First, drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater are looked at as three completely different entities. But water is water. By using it, we do not change its nature. However, when we withdraw water from ground and surface sources, use it, and then throw it away as if it were a waste product, we create enormous consequences for the environment and undermine efforts to sustain water resources. Second, capturing, storing, and centralizing water resource over large regions is unnatural. Nature likes to keep water local, filtering it through the ground, and only in the last instant releasing it as groundwater springs to tributaries and rivers and allowing it to escape to the sea.

To overcome the water shortages Eastern Massachusetts is currently experiencing, we must think about how nature intended the water cycle to be. There is plenty of water, but due to increased development there is not enough filtering through natural surfaces into the groundwater. We need to keep water local, instead of shipping it away to be treated. It is time to stop throwing water away.

Robert Zimmerman, Jr. has been Executive Director of Charles River Watershed Assoc. www.charlesriver.org since 1991. Peggy Sunshine, Development Dir, and Rebecca Scibek, Development Assoc, contributed to this report.