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.

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.

The Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, along with the Coastal Conservation Association of NH, Great Bay Trout Unlimited and the NH Coastal Protection Partnership, coauthored the following editorial to The Portsmouth Herald.

A copy of this OpEd was originally published in The Portsmouth Herald. You can find a copy of it online here.

April 13 — To the Editor

The Great Bay estuary is in decline. That’s the inescapable message of the Piscataqua Region Estuary Partnership’s (PREP) most recent (2009) State of the Estuaries report, which tracks the health of the Great Bay and Hampton/Seabrook estuaries.

Of 12 primary indicators of the estuary’s health tracked by PREP, 11 show negative or cautionary trends, including two very troubling negative trends: nitrogen concentrations in Great Bay are increasing, and eelgrass vegetation — the cornerstone of the Great Bay ecosystem, and an important nursery for fish and other marine species — is in sharp decline.

Consistent with findings in the 2009 State of the Estuaries report, the N.H. Department of Environmental Services and Environmental Protection Agency have acknowledged that waters throughout the Great Bay estuary are impaired, meaning that their health is in jeopardy. Based on the overwhelming evidence that immediate action is needed to clean up the estuary, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun issuing draft permits to limit nitrogen pollution from sewage treatment plants affecting the estuary (there are a total of 18 such facilities, 14 of them in New Hampshire; none currently has a nitrogen pollution limit).

In sharp contrast to the need for urgent and meaningful action, however, a small group of municipalities calling themselves the Great Bay Municipal Coalition — Dover, Portsmouth, Exeter, Rochester and Newmarket — persistently have tried to claim “the science is in doubt” and to delay needed improvements to their sewage treatment plants.

In the face of the pollution problems plaguing the estuary, rather than taking meaningful steps to solve the problem, the municipal coalition has engaged in a withering, all-out assault on the N.H. Department of Environmental Services and EPA. Last summer they sought assistance from a New Hampshire member of Congress, resulting in a bill calling for a five-year moratorium on any EPA permitting activity in the Great Bay estuary. Most recently, the municipal coalition filed a lawsuit against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, challenging — on procedural grounds — the legality of its analysis regarding nitrogen pollution in the estuary.

Members of the municipal coalition have been sure to explain that they care about the Great Bay estuary, and that they want to be part of the solution. They say they’re committed to “immediately” upgrading their sewage treatment plants to reduce nitrogen pollution. But their words ring hollow. In fact they’ve made clear that while they’re willing to “immediately” upgrade their sewage treatment plants to reduce pollution to a certain level, if they’re required to do more they will litigate the validity of their permits, and they’ll do nothing to upgrade their sewage treatment plants while that litigation is pending. Actions speak louder than words, and so far the municipal coalition’s only actions have been to delay what must be done to save the Great Bay estuary.

The Great Bay estuary belongs to us all. The health of its waters is inextricably linked to tourism and the local economy, and to what makes the Seacoast such a special place. We cannot allow the health of Great Bay, Little Bay, the Piscataqua River, and all the waters comprising the estuary to be held hostage. The estuary is approaching a tipping point which, once crossed, will make its recovery all the more expensive, if not impossible. Just ask the folks struggling to reverse the collapse of the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland, alone, is expected to spend — conservatively — $11 billion to clean up the bay.

We simply can’t afford to keep kicking this can down the road. It’s time for the municipal coalition to start investing in real solutions rather than paying lawyers and outside consultants to thwart needed action. It’s refreshing to see the town of Newington, which will be subject to EPA permitting, embracing the protections required to save Great Bay; and it’s encouraging to see another community, the town of Durham, choose not to follow the municipal coalition down the path of litigation and delay. We all benefit from a clean, healthy Great Bay estuary. Now is the time for action.

Derek Durbin
Chairman, New Hampshire Coastal Protection Partnership

Mitch Kalter
President, Trout Unlimited, Great Bay Chapter

Don Swanson
President, Coastal Conservation Association, N.H. Chapter

Peter Wellenberger
Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation