If you look around the Seacoast, you will discover some remarkable volunteers helping to protect the Great Bay estuary. Recognizing that stormwater is a major source of nitrogen pollution, these volunteers are leading the way to cleaner water by simply lending a hand.

Durham is one Great Bay community implementing innovative solutions to reduce stormwater pollution. In collaboration with the UNH Stormwater Center and EPA, the town in 2010 installed a bioretention system (rain gardens) at the Pettee Brook Lane parking lot – the town’s largest municipal lot. The system was designed to optimize the removal of phosphorus and nitrogen.

The Portsmouth Women’s Giving Circle helped do maintenance and install more plants at Durham’s rain gardens. Pictured are (counter clockwise): Meg and Tania Marino, Anne Pinciaro, Bobbie Cyrus, Mai Buker, Town Engineer Dave Cedarholm, Francie Osgood, and Rebecca Hennessy. Photo Courtesy of DPW.

The system was in dire need of maintenance in order to keep functioning properly. To meet the challenge, a large group of Oyster River Middle School students and teachers removed all the debris that had accumulated in the lot’s central rain garden. This work was followed by 7 volunteers from the Seacoast Women’s Giving Circle who spent a rainy Thursday morning cleaning out the smaller rain garden near the entrance of the lot and planting 20 additional plants in both gardens. The efforts of these volunteers will make the gardens more efficient and help to beautify the area – benefitting both local residents and merchants. To learn more about the value of rain gardens and how they function, click here.

Another volunteer, Michael Lambert of Exeter, took a different approach to help limit pollution in Great Bay. He was concerned that people in Exeter might not realize they are connected to people in Milton and Rochester through the same watershed and estuary. With the help of the Great Bay Research Reserve and town officials, he decided to install a map of the estuary near Swasey Parkway along the Squamscott River.

Michael’s efforts were recently unveiled during a public presentation. Mounted on stone, the map will help future generations understand that all the estuary’s communities are connected and must work together to protect this extraordinary natural resource.

A special thanks to these outstanding individuals for caring so deeply about the future of the Great Bay estuary and for making a difference. You can also learn more about the work of other individuals, like Bill Stewart of New Castle.

Furthermore, if you would like to join in and volunteer to help save Great Bay for future generations there are many opportunities to get involved. Email me at pwellenberger@clf.org or visit the Research Reserve’s Great Bay Discovery Center to learn more.

Ultimately, everyone can make a difference by being responsible for their communities.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Great Bay map along the Squamscott River in downtown Exeter

The NH Department of Environmental Services recently released its long-awaited draft Great Bay Non-Point Source Nitrogen Study, providing a breakdown of the sources of nitrogen pollution in the estuary, and additional insights on how to improve and protect water quality.

According to the draft study, the Great Bay estuary receives, on average, a total load of 1,225 tons per year of nitrogen pollution.  Of that total load, 390 tons (32 percent) come from sewage treatment plants. The remainder – approximately 900 tons per year – comes from a variety of so-called “non-point” sources: sources of pollution that are less discrete and less concentrated than what many of us may think of as a pipe discharging pollution from a facility. The draft study looked at four major “non-point” inputs of nitrogen pollution – atmospheric deposition, chemical fertilizers, septic systems and animal waste.

The study found that atmospheric deposition accounts for roughly 280 tons of nitrogen pollution annually (23% of the nitrogen load to the estuary). While a large percent of this is from out-of-state sources, such as polluted air from the Midwest, the rest comes from New Hampshire.

We can all help, by taking actions that reduce air pollution – such as by driving less, carpooling, using public transportation, using less electricity, and purchasing power from sources other than PSNH, which continues to operate polluting coal-fired power plants like Portsmouth’s Schiller Station. CLF has joined the empowerNH campaign, which provides information about how you can switch away from PSNH’s dirty, expensive energy and purchase cheaper, cleaner power.

According to the study, chemical fertilizer is another source of nitrogen pollution, adding 30 tons of nitrogen per year, or 18% of the estuary’s total load. Lawns and agricultural areas each contribute about the same amount, while recreational fields, parks and golf courses are only responsible for a small fraction of the total. The message here is clear – agricultural operations need to implement best management practices, and we need to have smaller lawns and use less fertilizer. Learn how you can have a healthy lawn and protect the environment.

Did you also know that more than half of the nitrogen load to the Great Bay estuary comes from human waste?

Human waste from septic systems accounts for 240 tons per year of nitrogen pollution. Add that to the 390 tons per year from sewage treatment plants – the single largest source of nitrogen pollution (and a source that can be easily controlled through sewage treatment upgrades) – and human waste accounts for a whopping 630 tons per year, meaning over half of the total nitrogen load to the estuary comes from human waste.

Animal waste accounts for the remaining 110 tons per year of nitrogen pollution in the estuary, with livestock responsible for most of this total. The rest is from pet waste. While pet waste is not a big part of the problem, reducing the water quality impacts of our pets is something all pet owners can do. Learn about environmentally friendly ways to care for your pet.

According to the study, much of the nitrogen from these non-point sources reaches the estuary through stormwater runoff. This means that in addition to reducing pollution from sewage treatment plants, we have to tackle the difficult challenge of stormwater pollution. Looking forward, it will be essential for communities to adopt “green infrastructure” approaches that reduce runoff, and to promote more compact development patterns as opposed to land-consuming sprawl. Incredibly, as a result of sprawl, impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots and rooftops) in New Hampshire’s coastal watershed increased 120 percent since 1990!

The study also modeled nitrogen loads for individual subwatersheds and towns to identify “hot spots.” These results should be useful in prioritizing efforts to reduce non-point sources of nitrogen and will complement a study being completed by the UNH Water Resources Center to pinpoint many of these hot spots.

Did you find this information useful, interesting, or believe more work needs to be done? Then you can be involved. The Department of Environmental Services is accepting public comments on the draft report until August 16, 2013.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

ecstaticist @ flickr

At the Sagamore-Hampton Golf Club in North Hampton, maintaining grass is a science. And that’s a very good thing. Did you know there are six golf courses in just the Winnicut River watershed alone?  And that’s just one small portion of the estuary.

It should come as no surprise that fertilizer is considered one of the major sources of nitrogen pollution. Homeowners – along with farmers – are the biggest users of fertilizer in the watershed. Fertilizer is also used on athletic fields and golf courses.

As Waterkeeper, part of my job is to educate people on how they, as individuals, can help protect the Great Bay estuary from pollution. As documented in PREP’s 2013 State of the Estuaries report, there are increasing nitrogen concentrations in Great Bay. The loss of eelgrass – the cornerstone of the Great Bay ecosystem – is a major cause of concern. Reducing sources of nitrogen pollution – along with other pollutants such as pesticides – is essential to improving water quality.

Sagamore-Hampton is setting an example for other golf courses and the rest of us to follow. According to Richard Luff, President and co-owner, “The Golf Club has been naturally maintained since its inception in the early 60′s, perfecting a maintenance program that is nearly 90% independent of chemically-based fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.”

On the greens, the weeds are hand-picked instead of using herbicides.  On the fairways they cultivate multiple grass species as opposed to a mono culture.  This creates a patchwork of grass species that are less susceptible to disease, drought, and pests.  They also allow clover, a nitrogen fixing plant, to grow freely on the fairways, tees, and in the rough.  When fertilizer is applied they only use an organic, slow release nitrogen mix that is up to 70-90 percent water insoluble.    As Richard noted, the key to low input course management is often waiting and seeing, not over reacting and treating.

Last year, the Club decided to go one step further and join the Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf. Audubon provides information to help golf course personnel with the key environmental components including chemical use reduction, water quality management and conservation, wildlife and habitat management, and outreach and education. Audubon’s real goal is to make us better stewards of our natural resources. As noted in their program statement, “The strongest part of the certification process is that it forces us to rethink our methods and manner of conducting business. It challenges our “status quo” by directing our thoughts and actions toward environmental awareness and changes our definitions of responsibility.”

To qualify for the program, the club had to initiate a comprehensive water quality monitoring program that looked at physical parameters, nutrients, and the presence of macro invertebrates. With the certification process now complete, the club is required to conduct periodic water quality testing. I’ll be working with the UNH Sea Grant Citizen Research Volunteer (CRV) program to implement testing three times a year.

If you play golf, I highly encourage you to check out the course and learn more about their environmental practices (like CLF, they also are a member of the Green Alliance). And if you are a homeowner and would like to reduce your impacts through better management practices, you can read my previous blog on Lawn Tips for a Healthy Great Bay. You can also read about New Castle’s Lawn to Lobsters program that is designed to assist homeowners in managing their properties.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Residents of Newmarket, New Hampshire went to the polls on Tuesday and sent a powerful message: that clean water is essential, and that we need to make needed investments to support it.

Up for vote yesterday was a warrant article to fund the $14 million construction of a major upgrade to the town’s sewage treatment plant. The result? More than 80 percent of voters approved the measure, making Newmarket a leading community in the efforts to improve the health of the Great Bay estuary.

Last December, Newmarket’s City Council voted unanimously to become the first New Hampshire Seacoast community to accept stringent reductions in nitrogen pollution from a sewage treatment plant. It has long been recognized that nitrogen from sewage treatment plants is a major, controllable source of the pollution that’s causing the decline of the Great Bay estuary.

Now, thanks to the wisdom of its voters, Newmarket can begin the upgrade of its existing sewage treatment plant – a facility in desperate need of an overhaul. First built in 1965 and last updated in 1985, it has become increasingly difficult – and costly – to maintain the facility. Under the terms of Newmarket’s agreement with EPA, the town now has five years to complete the project. Additional improvements may be required in later years. The town must also develop a comprehensive plan to reduce the impacts from polluted stormwater.

In accepting their final permit and working with EPA – rather than taking the path of endless, costly litigation currently being pursued by Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester – Newmarket town officials chose to be an important part of the solution for the Great Bay estuary. Now, Newmarket voters have taken the next critical step, confirming the town’s willingness to lead in solving our water pollution problems.

Newmarket’s positive vote sends a powerful signal that the people of the Seacoast care about protecting the health of our waters. Municipal officials in Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester need to hear this message, and need to end their ongoing tactics designed to delay needed protections for our estuary – delays that the Great Bay estuary simply can’t afford.

Newmarket voters are to be thanked and congratulated for taking this important, much needed step toward protecting the Lamprey River, Great Bay, and the estuary as a whole, now and for future generations.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Like many other communities in the Seacoast, Newmarket is faced with an aging and outdated sewage treatment plant. As the health of the Great Bay estuary continues to decline, the town is committed to being part of the solution.

Fortunately, Newmarket – along with Exeter – has decided the best way to move forward is to work with EPA and recently became the first community in the estuary to accept stringent nitrogen limits. By voting to accept its permit, the town has taken a significant first step towards addressing the issue of nitrogen pollution – the primary cause of the decline in eelgrass biomass.

The town is to be commended for taking this action. The current facility exceeds its total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand monthly average limits during the winter months. The plant has not had a major upgrade since 1985 making it more costly to maintain. A new and updated facility will result in improved water quality in the Lamprey River and Great Bay.

In order to educate residents on why a new plant is needed, the town’s Conservation Commission held a public forum on the “Health of the Great Bay Estuary.” As Waterkeeper, I had the privilege of facilitating the discussion on the town’s plans for a new treatment plant and why the upgrade must be done now.  There were several presentations on the impacts of pollution on the estuary which have caused dramatic habitat changes including a decrease in fish populations. The fact that not all nitrogen is created equal was also discussed.

Sewage treatment plants are a major source of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) – the most reactive form of nitrogen. While sewage treatment plants are responsible for thirty-two percent of the total nitrogen load to the estuary, they contribute fifty-two percent of the dissolved inorganic nitrogen. According to the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP) State of Our Estuaries 2013 report, there has been a 68% average increase for DIN between 1974 and 2011. You can read PREP’s entire 2013 report here.

The Forum’s message was clear – if we want to clean up the estuary we need to address point and non-point sources of pollution as well as improving the habitat to allow key species like eelgrass and oysters to thrive. I urge Newmarket votes to approve the warrant article for a new treatment plant on March 12.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Why does CLF heart estuaries? For so many reasons. Estuaries are one of nature’s great ideas. Not just an elegant transition from freshwater to saltwater, estuaries also provide rich feeding grounds for coastal birds and are important places for fish and other marine life to reproduce. Their sheltered waters and unique vegetation provide juvenile animals with places to hide and find food. This is why estuaries are often called the “nurseries of the sea.”

Some of New England’s best known estuaries include Casco Bay, the many small bays and inlets of Massachusetts’ shore, the Great Bay in New Hampshire and, of course, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. Estuaries are great places for recreation and tourism. Boating, bird-watching, and fishing are some of our favorite estuary pastimes. Not only are estuaries beneficial to us for relaxing and enjoying nature, they are extremely valuable and provide other services as well. They are natural filters – storing and trapping pollutants and sediments that come off the land, preventing them from reaching the blue water. They also provide protection from coastal flooding. With all these wonderful reasons, what’s not to love about estuaries!

CLF works to protect and restore these amazing and valuable places with a network of like-minded conservation groups across the nation. Restore America’s Estuaries is a national alliance of coastal conservation organizations committed to protecting and restoring the lands and waters essential to the richness and diversity of coastal life. The challenge we all face is to make sure our estuaries and other waterways receive the care and proper management they deserve. Restoring degraded streams and rivers is a great way to provide healthy estuaries and the benefits we love and depend upon. If you love estuaries too (and we know you do), then take a minute to share the love online through the I Heart Estuaries Facebook page. Let the Congress and the Administration know of your heartfelt desire to see New England’s estuaries receive better protection and stewardship.

Algae Growth in the Winnicut River, Greenland, NH; photo by Peter W.

In early January, the Town of Exeter’s Selectmen voted 5 to 0 not to appeal a permit issued by the EPA – a permit that will require a major upgrade of its sewage treatment plant. Exeter becomes the second Great Bay community to accept stringent reductions in nitrogen pollution from a sewage treatment plant, following in the footsteps of Newmarket which announced in December they would not appeal a similar permit.

Together, Exeter and Newmarket have taken an important first step toward tackling the issue of nitrogen pollution – a problem that is contributing to a decline in the health of the estuary. Sewage treatment plants are a major source of nitrogen pollution, especially dissolved inorganic nitrogen – the form of nitrogen of greatest concern. According to the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP) State of Our Estuaries 2013 report, there has been a 68% average increase in this troubling form of nitrogen between 1974 and 2011. You can read PREP’s entire 2013 report here.

The most effective method for reducing nitrogen inputs to the estuary is by upgrading aging and outdated sewage treatment plants. Like Newmarket, Exeter will now begin the process of constructing a new plant that will lead to a significant reduction in nitrogen levels. You can read about Exeter’s plans here.

Unfortunately, officials from Dover and Rochester have decided it is not in their best interest for others to invest in new infrastructure designed to reduce nitrogen pollution. On December 14, they filed an appeal of Newmarket’s permit. That’s right: Dover and Rochester are appealing a permit issued to Newmarket – a permit with no bearing on their respective communities. As discussed in an op-ed written by me and other members of the Rescue Great Bay coalition, this latest legal maneuver is part of an ongoing campaign to derail needed efforts to protect the estuary. It’s time for Dover and Rochester to step aside and let communities solve the problems facing Great Bay.

In this regard, you can help the Great Bay estuary by taking action now: follow this link to urge the mayors of Rochester and Dover to drop their appeal of Newmarket’s permit and let us get on with the business of protecting our waters.

We commend Exeter and Newmarket for their actions to protect our Great Bay waters, and we urge Dover and Rochester to get out of the way and allow other communities to get on with the business of cleaning up the estuary.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

In a move that will further delay progress cleaning up the Great Bay estuary, the Cities of Rochester and Dover, NH, have appealed a critical permit recently issued by the EPA to address the mounting problem of nitrogen pollution in the Great Bay estuary.

Whose permit did they appeal? Incredibly, Rochester and Dover are expending resources not to appeal a permit that affects their sewage treatment plants. Rather, in the height of arrogance, Dover and Rochester are appealing a permit granted by EPA to the Town of Newmarket, for Newmarket’s sewage treatment plant. Apparently, Rochester and Dover have decided that when it comes to the health of the Lamprey River in Newmarket, and Great Bay, they know best.

In a press release issued by the Town of Newmarket on December 10, the Town stated that “it is in the best interest of our community to work with the EPA to protect Great Bay instead of entering into a lengthy and costly legal process.” The Town has recognized this is not something that can be put off and hopes to move quickly to build a new, much-needed sewage treatment plant.

Unfortunately, Newmarket’s desire to constructively move forward with solving the problem of nitrogen pollution in the Lamprey River and Great Bay means nothing to Dover and Rochester. Filing this appeal could delay final permitting of the Newmarket sewage treatment plant for years, jeopardizing the health of the estuary. Click here to read more about Newmarket’s reaction to this unfortunate and unexpected legal maneuver by Dover and Rochester.

It is outrageous that Dover and Rochester – purportedly acting as the Great Bay Municipal Coalition, of which Newmarket is a part – would bring a legal action challenging another town’s permit. And if interfering in the affairs of Newmarket is not enough, Dover and Rochester – along with the City of Portsmouth – also recently filed a lawsuit against EPA challenging the regulatory process in the estuary (after having a similar lawsuit against the NH Department of Environmental Services thrown out by the Merrimack County Superior Court).

How much money do these communities plan to spend in their seemingly endless effort to delay cleaning up the estuary? In September, they had spent more than $750,000. Of course, the tab only continues to grow. Do the residents of Dover and Rochester really want their valuable city resources being used to prevent other communities from taking constructive action to protect their local waters and Great Bay?

If you are as outraged as I am by this latest development, please contact me at pwellenberger@clf.org to learn how you can help bring real progress to protecting Great Bay – now, and for future generations.  Enough meddling – we need to get to work and clean up the estuary.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and on Twitter.

As I travel around the Seacoast, it is such a pleasure to talk with people who share my love for Great Bay.  Recently, I made a presentation to the Durham Garden Club – a group that recognizes the importance of clean water – and ran into an old friend who cares deeply about the health of the estuary.

Dennis related his own experiences as a scuba diver and the changes he has witnessed beneath the surface in our coastal waters. I was so moved by his comments, that I asked him to write a letter to the local papers. His letter appears in both the Portsmouth Herald and Foster’s Daily Democrat, and I urge you to read it. As you’ll see, Dennis poses the question – based on his personal observations as a scuba diver – “Where have all the fish gone?” He notes significant and troubling changes, including “a huge decline in fish populations along our coast” in recent years, and “marked reductions” in critical habitat in the Great Bay estuary rendering it “largely inhospitable for fish to spawn.”

The changes Dennis describes are not easily evident viewing Great Bay from the shoreline, which is what makes his observations so important – observations that confirm the urgent need to reduce pollution in the Great Bay estuary before it’s too late.

As Dennis concludes:

“These changes negatively impact both the sport and commercial fishing industries and the recreational value of the Great Bay estuary and of our coast. We need to require that all of the municipalities upgrade their sewage treatment facilities to reduce nitrogen pollution before it is too late. We have an environmental catastrophe in the making.”

Again, I urge you to take a look at Dennis’s excellent letter as well as his underwater photography presented in the above slide show, as it provides a view of the Great Bay estuary that is largely invisible to so many of us.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.