May 1, 2008 is the last day to submit public comment regarding Mirant Corporation's application to EPA to renew their permit to pollute the Charles. It is called a NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit. Here is what I wrote. There's not much tine left, but please write.

Mr. George Papadopoulos
EPA New England, Region 1
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston MA 02114-2023
April 30, 2008
Dear Mr. Papadopoulos

I share the goal of continuing the improvement of the water quality and wildlife habitat in the Charles River Basin. I live within a half mile of the river and walk along parts of it daily. I enjoy boating, bird watching, bicycling, and photography in and around the Charles whenever possible. I have been an advocate of improvements in access and habitat for decades.

As I'm sure you know, the abutters to the Broad Canal are required to construct certain improvements in the canal as part of their state and local permit requirements. These include a boardwalk and public park along the north bank and a canoe and kayak launch and dock at the terminus.

There is one aspect of the proposed permit that will diminish the usability of the above improvements and, I believe, degrade the wildlife habitat within the Broad Canal. I refer to the possibility of blocking the canal entrance with a netting or mesh device to prevent the impingement and entrainment of fish eggs and larvae due to cooling water intake and its flow through the plant, resulting in the death of those organisms. Even if, as I have read, the device may not be in place all year, it presents problems.

The barrier will prevent the passage of all fish in and out of the canal. This will result in the depletion of food stocks for fish-eating birds which frequent the canal. I have observed great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, hooded merganser, red-breasted merganser, pied-billed grebe, and, of course, cormorants and gulls feeding in the canal. To deprive these waterfowl of feeding grounds and fish of habitat is not consistent with your mission, and may well conflict with wetlands protection regulations. It is unknown what other effects this sudden change in the local biota may have.

The barrier will completely prevent the entry of power boats into what has been a navigable public waterway for generations. Sightseers and fishermen still enter the canal regularly. Isn't such access determined by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, not the EPA?

The barrier will significantly interfere with the use of the planned public canoe and kayak launch, docking facility, and boat rental concession. Even if the barrier is constructed so that it is possible for small craft to skim over it, it is not credible to assume that there will not be snags, collisions and displacements which will damage and diminish the effectiveness of the barrier and interfere with access to the boating facility. Nor is it conceivable that the barrier will not be damaged by power boats.

In addition, the barrier may be in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act if it prevents the use of small electric "trolling" motors on water craft by those protected under that act.

The barrier will interfere with the property rights of the abutters. Mirant does not own the whole of the Broad Canal nor all of its banks. The infringement of the other owners’ enjoyment of their property may be a taking in violation of the Constitutions of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The proposed installation of this barrier appears to have significant adverse effects that should be subject to review in a formal environmental impact statement, but I am unaware of any such review.

Given all of the above concerns, and those sent to you by Dr. Rae Stiening, there must be some serious consideration of acceptable alternatives. Two of these occur to me immediately.

The first would be to have Mirant relocate its cooling water intake to that area of the Charles River outside of the canal where Memorial Drive swings out over the water several hundred feet south of its current location. Use of this area would isolate a much smaller piece of habitat, and would not interfere with other uses of the canal. It also has the advantage that the highway structure could be used for support and would offer a longer cross section than the entrance to the canal, further slowing the speed at which intake water would pass through and further reducing any impingement of marine life. Mirant has previously expressed a desire to build a heat diffuser pipe for its cooling effluent that would extend 700 feet into the river, so this would be within their capability. That plan was blocked for other environmental reasons.

The second alternative that comes to mind is not to renew the permit. Kendall Station is one of the largest polluters of the Lower Charles. It is an established fact that the heat load introduced into the river by this plant creates a "dead zone" harming several fish species. In summer months, when water flow from upriver is low the Charles River basin is effectively a lake. I have been told that in four days, Kendall Station draws a volume of water through its cooling system equal to the volume of water present between the Longfellow Bridge and the dam at Science Park, and in a month an amount equal to all the water in the river from the B.U. Bridge to the harbor dam.

This effectively makes the Charles River Basin Mirant's private cooling pond. That may not be the best use of our natural resources. The plant produces a very small portion of the region’s electricity and no one would suffer without it.

The land on which the facility is located is likely worth more as a development parcel than as an electricity generation plant.

Please consider all of these factors and options in your decision regarding this permit.

Sincerely,
Mark Jaquith
213 Hurley Street
Cambridge, MA 02141