Like many other communities in the Seacoast, Newmarket is faced with an aging and outdated sewage treatment plant.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.

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