Last month, the Monitor published David Brooks’s dispassionate report on the inclusion of the Merrimack River as one of the nation’s “10 most endangered” per the advocacy group American Rivers (Monitor front page, April 12). This was the first such listing of a New England river since 2003.
Unfortunately, the American Rivers observations concerning the Merrimack were based on some seriously flawed data concerning likely development in New Hampshire forests.
Not only was the nomination of the Merrimack as seriously endangered based on misleading data, it completely ignored the state of New Hampshire’s aggressive and largely successful programs to limit future pollution.
It is clear some of the problem can be traced to their failure to note that the cited U.S. Forest Service forecast that 40 to 63 percent of New Hampshire’s forest land would be developed in the next 14 years was based on private forest land, while American Rivers erroneously implied the forecast applied to total New Hampshire forest land.
These discrepancies apparently induced American Rivers to paint an unduly negative picture of the future cleanliness of this major scenic river. The Merrimack River has actually been getting a lot cleaner for a long time, and its quality shows no sign of imminent decline.
American Rivers, over the years, has been a great proponent of river protection. The group’s demonstrated expertise and staffing is mostly focused on Western and Southern dam operations and mine drainage. These topics dominate the rationale for nominating the other nine rivers in 2016 and may explain the reason this respected environmental advocate missed the problems that this commentary identifies. “Deforestation and associated development hazards” is an unusual category for nomination by American Rivers.
There are several problems with the deforestation foundation of the report.
First of all, the population growth forecast used by the U.S. Forest Service adds significantly more people to the state than does the official county-by-county forecasts made by the New Hampshire government.
Second, the Forest Service seems to assume that almost all population growth will involve building new homes in currently forested land. In fact, following the news around the state suggests that a significant fraction of the slowly growing population is being housed in “reurbanized” locations – converted mills, etc.
When the report cites the population growth rate of three New Hampshire counties in the watershed as “twice the New England average” in an alarmist way, it would help to have noted that even so, those growth rates are less than half of 1 percent per year per state estimates – which hardly seems to put much pressure on the forest cover.
American Rivers also fails to acknowledge that private forest land in the watershed has, in fact, been being developed for years without noticeable negative impacts on the quality of Merrimack River water.
Major indicators of surface runoff pollution – phosphates and nitrates – have declined by about half in recent decades and chlorides from road salt have remained relatively stable. While excessive development and associated increases in impervious surfaces can indeed threaten the quality of Merrimack River water, it is hard to envision such a “tipping point” being reached in New Hampshire in the next 14 years.
Furthermore, the bacteria count in the New Hampshire section of the Merrimack has, on average, remained low since major reductions in undertreated municipal sewage discharge were achieved through the expensive upgrades in municipal treatment plants that resulted from the federal Clean Water Act. This includes Nashua’s major contribution to improved downstream water quality that is resulting from the big new holding tank at the Bridge Street site that will hopefully drive the frequency of combined sewer overflow events in the Nashua area toward zero.
Yes, more rapid reductions in CSO events throughout the state would be welcomed, but that wasn’t the basis of the American Rivers nomination.
As stated earlier, by implying that only legal conservation easements can protect the land against improper development, the American Rivers report totally ignores the effective ongoing efforts of New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services, with its associated extensive permitting process, that tries to ensure that all new developments manage storm water in accordance with best environmental practices, including the use, wherever possible, of porous pavements, infiltration basins and other onsite treatment methods.
These efforts are redoubled within 250 feet of all significant rivers and brooks under the States Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act.
American Rivers also undervalues the efforts of hundreds of volunteers throughout the state who help manage our rivers for the benefit of future generations, collect water quality samples to ensure the water is safe for drinking and swimming, and educate others about how to protect these valuable river resources.
The Merrimack river will be just fine if the DES is funded adequately to meet its responsibilities within the Rivers Management and Protect Program and if more people come to appreciate and enjoy it and help protect it, and are not scared off by exaggerated reporting.
(Gene Porter is the chairman of the Lower Merrimack River Local Advisory Committee, a state-chartered body of volunteers that provides advice concerning the management and protection of the lower Merrimack to the city of Nashua; the towns of Hudson, Litchfield and Merrimack; and the state Department of Environmental Services. He submitted this commentary as a concerned citizen, not on formal behalf of the LMRLAC.)