Mismanagement has led to the current Cape Cod water pollution crisis.

A recent federal court decision in Conservation Law Foundation’s and Buzzards Bay Coalition’s lawsuit against EPA addressing nitrogen pollution in Cape Cod bays has major implications for the way local water pollution control projects are funded in the Commonwealth.

The impact of nutrient pollution on the streams and bays of Cape Cod was identified as a looming problem in the 1978 Areawide Wastewater Management Plan written by a predecessor to the Cape Cod Commission. Despite the Plan’s requirement of annual updates, it sat untouched for over thirty years as the looming threat of nutrient pollution became a present crisis. Spurred by a lawsuit filed by CLF and the Buzzards Bay Coalition in 2011, the 1978 Plan is finally being updated by the Cape Cod Commission.

The importance of the current planning process’s successful completion was thrown into stark relief on August 23, when Senior Judge Mark L. Wolf of the United States District Court of Massachusetts ordered that a central claim in CLF’s and BBC’s 2011 Areawide Wastewater Management Plan lawsuit could go forward.

The lawsuit contends that EPA’s annual approvals of loans and grants for local projects from the State Revolving Fund – a pool of federal and state funds dedicated to reducing water pollution—must be consistent with applicable Areawide Wastewater Management Plans. The claim states that it is not possible for EPA to make funding decisions based on the present Plan because its 35-year-old recommendations are no longer relevant to solving current water quality problems.

Judge Wolf’s order held that EPA must determine every year that Massachusetts is only providing water pollution control funding to those projects that are consistent with a current management plan for a particular area. Congress required this annual review in order to assure that water pollution control projects are planned, funded, and implemented based on an up-to-date understanding of local water pollution problems. The Judge’s ruling stemmed from the fact that the Cape Cod plan is so outdated that money is being spent haphazardly, rather than funding projects that will address the current problems.  The rampant and continuing pollution in Cape Cod’s bays is a result of this inconsistency.

Studies have indicated that the total cost of cleaning up the polluted bays will range from $3-6 billion.  In FY2012 alone, the State Revolving Fund provided $164.7 million for clean water projects in communities across the state, according the 2012 Annual Report prepared by the Commonwealth.

To get that money flowing to projects that will be effective in controlling Cape Cod water pollution, it is imperative that Areawide Plan be updated. As the Court opinion states, “If EPA determines that the state is not complying with the SRF provisions …, the agency must cease to provide SRF funding, unless the state rectifies its actions and complies with the statute.”  The real world implications of this order are clear and significant—the future of money for local governments disbursed under the State Revolving Fund program depends on an updated and approved Areawide Plan.

The Cape Cod Commission is currently in the process of gathering stakeholder input for the Plan update. If you’re a Cape resident, check out the meeting schedule, or sign up to participate in the next round of their online public engagement tool. This stakeholder process, scheduled to be complete this December, will form the basis of the Commission’s new draft Plan.

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.

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.

We didn’t always have a love affair with our lawns. Until the late 18th century, most rural homeowners had a patch of packed dirt outside the front door or a small garden that contained a mix of flowers, herbs and vegetables. Up until then, lawns were not practical and were seen strictly as a luxury for wealthy landowners who could afford grounds keepers to maintain the grass with hand tools.

That all changed with the invention of the rotary mower and garden hose. Since then, green, weed-free lawns are common today and millions of Americans spend billions of dollars on landscaping companies to cut and maintain their grass. According to a 2000 Gallup survey, over 26 million US households hired a professional landscaping company. That little patch of green has become a big business.

Unfortunately, when homeowners over-fertilize or apply fertilizers incorrectly they are contributing to the nutrients pollution problem facing so many of our waters. The Great Bay estuary is no exception. The total nitrogen load to the estuary has increased significantly in recent years leading to declines in water quality, as evidenced by significant losses of the estuary’s cornerstone habitat – eelgrass. Preventing nitrogen pollution from lawn care is one of the steps needed to restore water quality and the health of the estuary.

Personally, I have never understood the allure of a green lawn. I don’t want to spend my weekends cutting grass or hire someone to do this work. However, if you prefer having a lawn it is important to make it as environmentally friendly as possible. First, consider downsizing your lawn by planting native shrubs and flowers. Most of my yard is a wild field or landscaped with native plants which provides excellent wildlife habitat. My family enjoys watching all the birds that are attracted to the diversity of plants living here.

Many people choose to have low-maintenance lawns which require no fertilizer. This is a great way to have an environmentally friendly lawn that does not impact water quality. For those who choose to use fertilizer, I encourage you to get your soil tested at the NH Cooperative Extension to learn what fertilizer best meets your needs and how best to apply it.

If fertilizer is required, the best strategy is to use an organic (not synthetic), slow-release nitrogen fertilizer. On the back of the bag, slow-release nitrogen is listed as “water insoluble nitrogen.” By using a slow-release type fertilizer, fewer applications are needed and some experts suggest only fertilizing once a year in the fall. Always remember to carefully follow the directions, as applying any kind of fertilizer can have an adverse impact on water quality. You should only use fertilizer with a content of at least 50% water insoluble nitrogen to protect against adding excess nitrogen to the groundwater that could eventually flow into the estuary.

Other tips for maintaining a healthy lawn with less environmental impact include:

Mow High – Taller grass has deeper, healthier roots; 3 inches or higher is recommended;

Leave Grass Clippings Behind – Grass clippings are a free source of nutrients;

Aerate Your Soil – Aeration allows water, air and nutrients to reach the soil more easily;

Fescue Seeds – Use seed mixtures with a high percentage of fescue grasses, which require less watering and mowing.

More free tips on low input lawn care are available from the UNH Cooperative Extension. The Extension also offers an excellent publication called Landscaping At the Water’s Edge, which provides excellent advice on how to create a natural buffer between your lawn and a waterway.

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.

On Monday, June 4, Congressman Darrell Issa of California and Congressman Frank Guinta of New Hampshire are hosting a hearing in Exeter entitled “EPA Overreach and the Impact on New Hampshire Communities.”

Based on the title of the hearing, it appears Congressmen Issa and Guinta already have made up their minds, before the hearing even begins, that EPA is somehow ‘overreaching’ in its approach to reducing nitrogen pollution in the estuary. This is simply not the case. EPA is proceeding on sound science and doing exactly what is required to restore and protect the estuary before it’s too late. At a time when we need to be solving the serious pollution problems threatening the Great Bay estuary, it’s disturbing to see such a biased and overtly political response.

If you care about the future of the Great Bay estuary, I urge you to attend this politically motivated hearing. But don’t expect to be allowed to speak – only invited guests are given that right.  Would it surprise you to learn that four of the five invited speakers represent the Municipal Coalition, the very group of communities – Exeter, Newmarket, Dover, Rochester and Portsmouth – that have brought suit against the NH Department of Environmental Services and are doing everything in their power to delay action on cleaning up the Bay?  The sole person testifying on behalf of the EPA will be Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding.  Not exactly a balanced panel.

In a prepared statement issued on Thursday, Rep. Guinta said that he’s concerned with “over-zealous regulation.”  We cannot escape the need for immediate action.  Further delays will only lead to more pollution, further degradation, and higher costs. The science continues to tell us that the health of the estuary is in decline and asking communities clean up their act is hardly over-zealous regulation.

I urge you to join at the hearing and silently voice your support for EPA and the need to take immediate action for a clean and healthy estuary. The hearing will be held at the Exeter Town Offices, 10 Front Street, beginning at 9 am. If you would like more information, please contact me to learn how you can help save Great Bay.

– For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter

I am pleased to announce the launch of our new e-newsletter – Great Bay Currents. As the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, my goal is to build a stronger public voice for protecting the Great Bay estuary and for meaningful and immediate actions to address the threats facing this remarkable natural treasure.

To accomplish this goal, I need your help.

The health of the Great Bay estuary is intractably linked to our quality of life on the Seacoast – in New Hampshire and southern Maine.  It’s key to our local economy, to the recreational opportunities we enjoy, and to the health of the marine environment. Unfortunately, the estuary is approaching a tipping point, and time is of the essence in solving the water pollution problems that threaten it.

I hope you’ll sign up for Great Bay Currents to keep informed, and that you’ll join me in the effort to save this critical resource. Help us build a stronger voice for the estuary. Encourage your friends to stay informed by forwarding them this message or sending them this link to sign up for Great Bay Currents.

If you would like to know how you can become more personally involved, please email me. The Great Bay estuary needs you, and I hope you, too, are inspired to make a difference.

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

Last week, I discussed how the municipalities that comprise the so-called Great Bay Municipal Coalition took the unfortunate step of filing a lawsuit against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, challenging its analysis of nitrogen pollution in the estuary. In an effort to prevent delays in solving Great Bay’s pollution problems, late last week CLF filed a motion to intervene in that lawsuit. You can find a copy of the motion here.

As I said in my last post, the declining health of the Great Bay estuary is well documented, particularly in regards to the effects of nitrogen pollution, which has reached unsustainable levels. We cannot afford to wait any longer in taking action to clean up the estuary. It’s time to start implementing real solutions, not to roll them back.

To learn more about our intervention filing, you can read our press release or our motion.

Stay tuned for more. I’ll be writing about this topic on a regular basis.

–

For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Just a few weeks ago, a group of municipalities calling themselves the Great Bay Municipal Coalition – Dover, Portsmouth, Exeter, Rochester and Newmarket – took the unfortunate step of filing a lawsuit against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, challenging its analysis of nitrogen pollution in the estuary. Despite the need for prompt action to protect the Great Bay estuary from pollution, the municipalities have chosen to attack NHDES’s nitrogen analysis on procedural grounds, claiming NHDES should have engaged in formal rule-making.

The declining health of the Great Bay estuary – and the effects of nitrogen pollution – is well documented. According to the most recent State of Estuaries report, nitrogen concentrations in Great Bay have increased to unsustainable levels. And the loss of eelgrass – the cornerstone of the ecosystem that provides essential habitat for juvenile fish (and is therefore a critical piece of the food web) — has been particularly dramatic, with some areas now completely devoid of this critical habitat.

Fortunately, some communities aren’t following in the path of these municipalities. Newington, for example, has been a strong supporter of recent regulatory efforts to reduce nitrogen pollution from sewage treatment plants. And Durham made the specific decision not to litigate against NHDES, and to instead work collaboratively with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) while at the same time exploring ways to reduce stormwater pollution.

Great Bay is approaching a tipping point and the recent lawsuit by the Municipal Coalition does nothing more than delay implementation of the necessary actions that are needed to prevent a collapse of the estuary. The waters of Great Bay belong to all of us.  It’s time for every community along its shores and within its watershed to start investing in real solutions and stop angling for delay.

–
For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.