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The most effective method for reducing nitrogen inputs to the estuary is by upgrading aging and outdated sewage treatment plants.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.

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.

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

A keystone to CLF’s work to secure a clean energy future for the region is completing the transition to a coal-free New England. It is a time of historic progress: cleaner, cheaper alternatives are driving coal out of the market, and old coal plants are closing their doors. But New Hampshire remains a critical battleground for CLF’s work, with two costly old coal-fired power plants being kept alive by failed state policies and ratepayer subsidies.

That’s why we’re delighted to be partnering with the Sustainability Film Series at Phillips Exeter Academy to present a free screening of the critically acclaimed documentary The Last Mountain in Exeter, New Hampshire, on Friday May 4. With stunning footage of the practice of mountaintop removal mining, the film bears dramatic witness to the social, public health, and environmental damage wrought by coal and power companies, and chronicles the grassroots fight against coal in Appalachia and around the country. The New York Times called The Last Mountain a “persuasive indictment” of coal; I think you’ll agree.

The Last Mountain producer Eric Grunebaum and I will be on hand for a panel discussion to discuss the film and the future of coal-fired power in New Hampshire and New England.

Please join us:

When: Friday, May 4, 2012. 7 pm.

Where: Phillips Exeter Academy, Phelps Academy Center in The Forum (3rd Floor), Tan Lane, Exeter, NH (map). 

Bring your friends and family, and email me at ccourchesne@clf.org with any questions. We hope to see you there!

Here is the trailer:

We often hear that increasing the amount of impervious cover – surfaces such as roadways and parking lots – leads to more stormwater runoff and declining water quality. So how does a community grow and avoid adding new pollution sources?

One key strategy is directing new, appropriate development into existing town centers and downtowns. The City of Dover recently announced a major development project that renovates an old mill complex in the heart of Dover’s downtown. The redevelopment of existing buildings is a welcome alternative to the sprawl that has occurred around the Seacoast in recent decades – sprawl that has led to a staggering increase in impervious cover in New Hampshire’s coastal watershed from 28,710 acres in 1990 to 50,352 acres in 2005.

The Cocheco Millworks building has been a feature of downtown Dover since the 1870s. Once an active mill site, the building has been partially occupied in recent years. We applaud Dover for its effort to revitalize the downtown by supporting the reuse of this historic site. When completed, the project will feature a mixed use of commercial space and residential units. (Read an article in Fosters on the project here.)

Sketch of the Exeter project.

CLF strongly supports this type of “infill” development – development that avoids the impacts of locating new buildings, and the roads and parking lots to support them, in places where development doesn’t exist. We were pleased to support the Squamscott Block project in downtown Exeter several years ago, and we’re pleased to see this latest example of infill development happening in Dover. Both of these projects show we can accommodate growth while at the same time avoiding unnecessary environmental impact and enhancing the vitality of our communities.

Credit: Cynthia Irwin

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency took an important step in putting New Hampshire’s Great Bay estuary on the path to recovery.  As a direct result of CLF’s advocacy, EPA issued a draft Clean Water Act discharge permit for the Exeter sewage treatment plant requiring — for the first time — nitrogen pollution limits.

Exeter’s facility — one of the largest sewage treatment plants in New Hampshire’s Seacoast — discharges directly into the Squamscott River, which flows downstream into Great Bay.  As EPA’s fact sheet for the draft permit explains, EPA began the re-permitting process for the Exeter plant in 2007.  Noting significant pollution problems in the Squamscott River and Great Bay, CLF objected to the 2007 draft permit for its failure to regulate nitrogen.  Based on those concerns, as well as further data showing the estuary’s decline – including the loss of essential seagrass habitat — EPA’s draft permit now proposes much-needed discharge limits to control nitrogen pollution from the Exeter sewage treatment plant.

Finally controlling nitrogen pollution from this significant discharge will be essential to protecting the health of the Squamscott River, which has experienced excessive levels of chlorophyll-a, depressed levels of oxygen, and the loss of important eelgrass habitat.   It also will help tackle nitrogen pollution problems in Great Bay.  But as EPA and the Department of Environmental Services know, reducing pollution from stormwater and other sewage treatment plants will be critical for the health of the Great Bay estuary.  Of the 18 sewage treatment plants discharging into the estuary, not one has a nitrogen pollution limit.  Exeter’s will be the first, and it’s an important step in the right direction.

EPA’s draft permit will be finalized after a public comment period which expires July 22.  A public hearing on the draft permit is scheduled for June 9 (6:30 p.m. at Exeter Town Hall).  You can help secure needed protections for the Squamscott River and Great Bay by weighing in!