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.

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.

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.

Stormwater continues to be a major source of pollution to the Great Bay estuary. When it rains, runoff carries a wide range of pollutants – from dog waste and lawn fertilizers, to gasoline and oil, to heavy metals, nutrients and sediments – that flow into our waters with little or no treatment.

To combat this pollution, the UNH Stormwater Center and other local groups are working with Seacoast communities to implement projects at a neighborhood level to reduce the flow of untreated stormwater reaching the estuary. While many of these projects are small in scope, they demonstrate the value of dealing with stormwater close to home. One of the most interesting approaches is based on a program that was developed in Maine.

In 2009, the Kennebunkport Conservation Commission, in partnership with the University of New England, the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and others, developed the Lawns for Lobsters program. The program’s goal is to educate homeowners on steps they can take to ensure a healthy lawn with minimal impact on the environment. The program was also recently renamed Lawns to Lobsters, giving greater emphasis on the flow of water from our lawns to the ocean.

Other communities are now adopting the program, including one in New Hampshire. New Castle, the only town in the state composed entirely of islands, covers approximately 500 acres and sits at the mouth of the Piscataqua River. With a residential population of slightly more than 1,000, the town’s Conservation Commission is committed to reducing the impacts from non-point sources of pollution and launched the Lawns to Lobsters program last summer.

Residents who want to participate in the program take a pledge to use sound stewardship principles in managing their own property. This includes testing the soil before using a fertilizer, applying the correct amount, and not applying fertilizer if rain is predicted in the next 48 hours. Other measures include keeping the grass at least three inches in length (tall grass needs less water), planting clover as a fertilizer substitute, properly disposing of dog waste, and using herbicides and insecticides sparingly. Homeowners also are asked to consider replacing all or part of their lawn with native plants.

Long term, the town wants to encourage citizens to install rain gardens and vegetative buffers as a way to prevent polluted runoff. In a compact community such as New Castle, all of these steps can add up and help to protect our waterways. You can read more about the New Castle Conservation Commission’s efforts to protect the Great Bay estuary here.

In partnership with the Great Bay Stewards and the NH Department of Environmental Services, we plan to launch a similar program for homeowners next spring. The program will be based on the Department’s Homeowner’s Guide to Stormwater Management. Stay tuned for more information!  In the meantime, there are lots of resources available to homeowners on how to install a rain garden. The University of NH Cooperative Extension Services offer an excellent guide called Landscaping at the Water’s Edge.

As Waterkeeper, I find it encouraging that New Castle is addressing the serious issue of stormwater pollution. We all need to work together to solve the problem. By becoming responsible homeowners, New Castle residents are taking an important first step.

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.

Officials from Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester – in their continuing campaign to delay critically important pollution reductions in the Great Bay estuary – have put the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on notice that they intend to file suit over the nitrogen discharge levels being proposed in their wastewater treatment permits.

As part of this campaign of delay, these municipalities have already sued the NH Department of Environmental Services, claiming regulators cannot proceed with requiring certain nitrogen pollution reductions unless and until the State has first engaged in a formal rule-making process. Now, they intend to pursue a similar theory in federal court in a lawsuit against EPA.

This latest move comes on the heels of claims from these same officials that conditions in the Great Bay estuary are improving. Extracting data from the upcoming State of the Estuaries Report to be published by the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP), and selectively focusing on certain brief time periods, they are attempting to make the case that nitrogen levels are dropping and eelgrass beds are coming back. While variations from year to year can always be expected, the long-term trends have not changed. Total nitrogen loads remain higher than they were in the early 2000’s and eelgrass health continues to decline.

What is even more disturbing is the statement made by Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester officials that eelgrass coverage is on the “rebound in Great Bay and Little Bay.” In arguing that eelgrass conditions are improving, they rely heavily on so-called “eelgrass cover” data – data showing the spatial distribution of eelgrass. While data may show eelgrass cover increasing in some places in the estuary, this can actually be a sign of severe stress. When eelgrass beds are in decline, it is not uncommon for the surviving plants to send out lots of new shoots in attempt to re-establish the bed. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the new shoots will mature into reproducing adult plants.

Rather than eelgrass cover, eelgrass biomass – which measures the total plant density in a given area – is a much more reliable indicator of ecosystem health. Unfortunately, even though eelgrass cover may occasionally increase in some places, the total biomass of eelgrass in the estuary has decreased dramatically – from 1,807 metric tons in 1996 to 545 tons in 2011. That’s a seventy percent decrease in eelgrass biomass over the course of fifteen years. This unfortunate fact contrasts sharply with the picture of ecosystem health that certain municipal officials are trying to paint.

At a time when we need to be solving the serious pollution problems threatening the Great Bay estuary, it is discouraging to see officials from a small group of municipalities once again attempt to delay needed pollution reductions. One of their own attorneys has publicly acknowledged that a lawsuit against EPA is likely to cost several hundred thousand dollars. That’s on top of the over $800,000 Portsmouth, Dover, Rochester, Exeter and Newmarket (the so-called “Municipal Coalition”) have already spent trying to undermine and delay needed regulatory decision-making. Wouldn’t these funds be better spent reducing pollution from aging and outdated wastewater infrastructure?

Newmarket and Exeter, also members of the Municipal Coalition, have not joined Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester in this latest tactic against EPA and hopefully will decide that cleaning up the estuary is a far more important productive path to follow. Durham and Newington are working to implement constructive solutions to the problems facing the estuary. We hope the Municipal Coalition will follow their lead and end this campaign of delay.

As I drive around the Seacoast, I see a lot of people getting their driveways resealed. Perhaps people are anxious to get this done before the onset of winter. I wonder, though, if homeowners realize there are different types of sealcoats and that choosing the right one can help protect the environment and our health.

Most sealcoats are made of either an asphalt emulsion or a refined coal-tar pitch emulsion. Although the two sealcoats are similar in appearance and cost, coal-tar pitch sealers contain much higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, more commonly known as PAHs. Present in crude oil and diesel fuel, these organic compounds are known to cause cancer.  Incredibly, the concentrations of PAHs are up to 1,000 times higher in coal-tar-based sealcoats compared to asphalt sealers, posing a threat to fish and humans.

The UNH Stormwater Center has been studying the impact of coal-tar based sealcoats and found that soil at the edge of the pavement contained several hundred parts per million (ppm) of PAHs compared to less than 10 ppm where no sealcoat was applied.  Soil samples taken three years after the initial application remained high in PAHs. This means that dust from sealed pavements, with elevated levels of carcinogens, can track to areas like playgrounds and homes.

The presence of high PAH concentrations in your driveway pose a threat to your family’s health. Studies at the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health found that constant exposure to PAHs can affect cognitive development and cause asthma and other respiratory problems in children.

Toxic to aquatic life, the presence of PAHs is also on the rise in the sediments of Great Bay, adding yet another stress to the estuary and putting its health at risk. UNH researchers are currently trying to determine if sealants are the major source of PAHs to the estuary and hope to build a model that links the contaminant to its source.

Unlike many environmental choices, this one is fairly simple – avoid coal-tar based sealcoats in favor of asphalt-based ones or, better yet, no sealcoat at all. Home Depot and Lowes no longer sell coal-tar based sealcoats, but they are still available at some other retailers. You can tell if a product contains coal tar by looking at the materials list for words like “coal tar”, “refined coal”, “refined tar”, and “coal-tar pitch.” If you hire a commercial sealcoat company, insist they only use an asphalt-based sealer and only apply if the outside temperature is at least 60 degrees F, with no rain forecasted for at least two days after application.

Maintaining a driveway in New England is never easy. Constant freezing and thawing can lead to lots of cracks, often made worse by plowing, causing homeowners to protect their driveways by using a sealcoat every couple of years. However, proper repair of cracks in your driveway can delay and potentially avoid the need to sealcoat.

To repair driveway cracks, which can lead to pavement deterioration, homeowners typically use a cold asphalt patch to fill cracks. One new product now available is called GreenPatch, an environmentally friendly cold asphalt patch that does not contain petroleum based solvents. This makes GreenPatch a VOC compliant material that is healthier for your family.

As consumers, we are faced with many choices. If you are planning a new driveway, alternative surfaces such as gravel, concrete or porous pavement are great options as none of these require the use of sealants. Since most of us already have an asphalt driveway, the choice is even clearer – maintain your driveway to avoid the need to use sealants, and if sealants are necessary, never use a coal-tar based product

Scammell Bridge looking toward the Bellamy River.

There are seven rivers that drain into the Great Bay estuary, carrying freshwater runoff – as well as pollutants – from 52 communities including 10 in Maine. The Bellamy River, which flows into Little Bay, originates from Swains Lake in Barrington and flows east through the Bellamy Reservoir in Madbury and then through the City of Dover. Seacoast residents might be most familiar with the mouth of the Bellamy, which flows under the Scammell Bridge on Route 4.

Even though I have been working in the Great Bay estuary for nearly twenty-five years, I had never actually been on the river. Last week, I finally got that chance and was amazed by the lack of development along the shoreline. Starting from Little Bay, we cruised all the way to the former Sawyer Woolen Mills in Dover. Other than the occasional truck noise from nearby Spaulding Turnpike that runs parallel to the river, the Bellamy offers one of the best wilderness experiences in all of Great Bay.

Wildlife is abundant along the river, in part due to the presence of two large preserves. Located near the mouth of the Bellamy and Royalls Cove is the Bellamy River Wildlife Sanctuary.  Owned and managed by New Hampshire Audubon, the Sanctuary consists of twenty six acres of prime wildlife habitat. To learn more about the Sanctuary, visit the NH Audubon web site.  For a more detailed description of the hiking trails available, go to Hike New England.

Just above the NH Audubon Sanctuary is the Bellamy River Wildlife Management Area (WMA), managed by the NH Fish and Game Department. The area was acquired in early 1990’s using State land protection funds and protects 400 acres of tidal creeks, wetlands, woodlands and fields. Common wildlife found here are deer, pheasant, bobolinks, meadowlarks and waterfowl. You can learn about hiking opportunities by visiting the Fish and Game website.

Fall is the perfect time to hike all of the protected lands around Great Bay including the two areas above. The Scammell Bridge is also a popular fishing spot for local anglers. However, if you really want to enjoy the abundant birdlife along the Bellamy, I would recommend kayaking the tidal portion of the river.

You can leave right from the Scammell Bridge Access Point. You can park on the north side of Route 4 and from here head up river.  In addition to great blue herons, you can expect to see lots of other bird species especially as fall migration season begins in September. Keep in mind to always check the tides when kayaking in the estuary. The Bellamy River is best enjoyed at high tide providing easy access to the numerous tidal creeks found along the way.

Exploring the Bellamy reminded me why Great Bay is such a special place. As the overall health of the estuary continues to decline, we need to protect this remarkable resource for future generations. To learn more about my efforts to help rescue Great Bay from further decline, click here. You can also sign our online petition to support clean water in the estuary.