[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference wahoo::fishing-v2

Title:	Fishing-V2: All About Angling
Notice:	Time to go fishin'! dayegins
Moderator:	WAHOO::LEVESQUE

Created:	Fri Jul 19 1991
Last Modified:	Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	548
Total number of notes:	9621

149.0. "Charles River problem" by ELWOOD::CARLIN (Balance) Mon Mar 30 1992 11:17

I read this in The Fisherman, and decided to type it into this notesfile. 
Please pass it around. It seems to me that the least they can do is to look 
into the impact on the habitat and fish, before making such a decision. It's 
this kind of (non-)representation that really irritates me. Bottom line, is 
that a power plant is being planned for Milford MA, on the Charles river, 
with no consideration to the impact it will have on the fish, wetlands, 
etc. This is pretty much a verbatim transcription of a letter written to 
the Fisherman.


There is a proposal to build a power plant in Milford MA, that represents a 
direct threat to all bass fishermen in this state. In a cynical fashion the 
company (Enron) has obtained all necessary state permits without public 
comment. The bass fishermen of this state have been on the sideline so 
far. I want to change that. We don't have much time. The current schedule 
calls for the ground breaking on this project on April 1, 1992.

The Charles is under a double threat. The power plant  will use river 
water to cool generators reducing the flow of the river some 20 percent. A 
reduced water flow will dry up some of the existing wetland, further 
degrading the stream. If the plan goes through, bass will vanish from the 
Charles.

Most people don't know what a productive fishery this river is. Last year 
I landed 245 bass in this river, all released. The largest was 6 pounds. I 
missed one that was at least 8 pounds. These fish are healthy and beautiful. 
It is a resource that demands stewardship. We have a choice to make. We can 
sit back and watch the Charles become an open sewer or we can fight to 
save a healthy river. Either way, we cannot avoid having made a decision

The agencies charged with the responsibility of protecting this resource 
have either been ineffective or sidelined in the project. However, have 
allies in the EPA and the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. They are not happy to 
have been dealt out on this project.

I am doing my best to raise holy hell about this threat, but I need help. 
I'm not an activist. I fished the river 134 days last year. That doesn't 
leave much time for other activities. What I am is a concerned fisherman. 
The problem is that fishermen aren't a commercial resource when it concerns 
this river. No tourists come to Massachusetts to fish the fabulous 
Charles. Perhaps that's why the power company feels it can pull this off. it 
is an important resource to those of us who live near it and fish on it. 
They're hoping we don't count for much.

The following materials spell out some of the details and provide some 
reference points, should you decide to help. I've tried to sift through the 
bureaucratic gobbledy-gook and put the situation in common English. Any 
of the agencies cited can provide plenty of source material, But time is 
short. 

Than you for considering this request.
Ottar Draugsvold, Dedham MA.

The proposal

Algonquin Gas Transmission CO has requested a permit to run a natural gas 
pipeline into Milford to service a proposed Enron Power plant (docket # 
CP91-1983-000). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction 
over the issuing of such permits. At their discretion, FERC can require 
an environmental impact statement not only for the pipeline, but also for 
the related power plant, which is the sole user of the gas provided. FERC 
has yet to rule on the matter. FERC can choose to entertain a period of 
public comment at their discretion. No ruling has been made on a period of 
public comment to date.

In brief, here is the proposal. Enron will build a power plant along the 
Charles in Milford MA. The plant would use effluent from an existing sewage 
treatment plant at a rate of approximately one million gallons a day. 
Currently this effluent is returned to the river. During the dry season the 
effluent can constitute the majority of water entering the river at this 
point, six miles from its source. Enron will evaporate 80% of the water. 
This represents an annual reduction of water volume of around 20% near 
the headwaters of the river. The river at this point is small, 
approximately 15 feet wide and an average depth of six inches.

This project could have a devastating impact on the bass population of the 
river. At current flow levels the most fecund bass (2 to 3 pounds) now 
endure one week of stressful flows before reaching their most productive 
age, 7 to 8 years of age. If the project is allowed to proceed, they will 
endure 131 to 153 days of stressful flows. Bass are an indicator species of 
the impact of this scheme on the entire fish population.

To date, all state permits have been granted. If FERC issues a permit, all 
approvals will be in place. This has occurred without any study of the 
impact of such a scheme on the fish in the river. 

Reduced volume will have several very nasty synergistic effects on the 
river. First, it will increase the concentration of dissolved pollutants and 
silt. Second, it will decrease the depth in two ways; first by less water, 
second by slower water, allowing more soil to be deposited. A shallower 
slower river will allow more weedy conditions. Reduced volumes will also 
dry up some of the existing wetland, reducing the river's ability to 
cleanse itself. The combination of all this will raise the average 
temperature of the water. All of this becomes critical during the hot 
dry months of summer, when flow volume is already at critical levels. A 
river can only hold fish that can survive the most severe conditions 
during any year. This project could make the river a hostile environment 
for many species of fish.


     Contact Points.

Lois D. Cashell, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 North Capitol St.
Washington D.C. 20426

Susan F. Tierney, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
20th floor
100 Cam,bridge St.
Boston, MA 02202

Laurie Martinelli
Director of Public Policy
Massachusetts Audubon Society
South Great Road
Lincoln, MA 01773

Ann Blackburn
Environmental Affairs Coordinator
Charles River Watershed Association
2391 Commonwealth Ave
Auburndale, MA. 02166

Steve Ellis
Director of Environmental Review
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203

Richard Keller 
Aquatic Biologist
Div. of Fisheries & Wildlife
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Field Headquarters
One Rabbit Hill Rd.
Westborough, MA 018581

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
149.1	The Charles is a problem	GEMVAX::JOHNHC		`Mon Mar 30 1992 12:15`	7
	Well, if a Massachusetts river has to be trashed by industry, I'm glad they picked one that is beyond recovery. The Charles River is one that we (the Divers' Environmental Survey) wrote off as a lost cause last year. We don't participate in any of the futile efforts to make it cleaner or prettier. John H-C
149.2	That was a John H-C response???	DELNI::OTA		`Mon Mar 30 1992 12:49`	9
	Not to argue the point, but I have heard that the Charles river, especially the upper end is a very nice fishery. In fact it was a feature river in a BassMasters Magazine a couple of months ago. I am surprised by your response John, any watershed, waterway needs to be protected. Brian
149.3		ELWOOD::CARLIN	Balance	`Mon Mar 30 1992 13:05`	12
	> I am surprised by your response John, any watershed, waterway needs to > be protected. Me too. Who are we to judge who or what gets saved and what gets trashed. Shouldn't we be trying to do what we can to save ALL rivers and bodies of water?? I also heard that the upper Charles was a very good fishery and the water was also of drinkable levels. The lower basin is in pretty bad shape, but it has to start somewhere. leo
149.4		SUBPAC::CRONIN		`Mon Mar 30 1992 13:53`	10
	The Charles starts in Hopkinton. Where it TRICKLES under rt. 85 you could easily step over it. Next it flows into Echo Lake which just happens to be the Milford water supply. I'm sure that the water quality gets worse as it goes through Milford, BUT, we're not talking about the Charles in Boston here! Saying that it's a good river to let go to waste is like looking at the Conn. River in Springfield and saying we might as well let the Conn. Lakes in northern N.H. go to hell. Just because it's not deep enough to use scuba equipment doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked after. B.C.
149.5	...	GEMVAX::JOHNHC		`Mon Mar 30 1992 14:56`	15
	Don't get me wrong, folks. It saddens me more than I can convey that we are forced to the conclusion that some bodies of water just plain cannot be saved. There are five on the list in Massachusetts, and I fear it will grow as the DES grows and finds more divers willing to dive under almost any conditions. DES policy is to strongly recommend that divers stay out of the Charles River, not so much because it is a waste of time, but because it is too dangerous. Now that the MA F&W has declared itself uninterested in bass, I wonder whether anybody has done any liver tests on the bass out of the Charles? John H-C
149.6		GNPIKE::HANNAN	Beyond description...	`Mon Mar 30 1992 15:44`	9
	When I was a kid I remember being amazed that if you fell in the Charles around Storrow/Memorial Drive, you'd have to get a tetanus shot - the shot you need if you step on a rusty nail or something. I guess now things are better, and you don't need a shot if you go in the water - probably just a good hot shower ;-) Ken
149.7	50's Fishing the Charles...	CAPL::LANDRY_D		`Tue Mar 31 1992 09:21`	24
	I was born and raised in Cambribge and have fond memories of the Charles River during the 50's & 60's. My brother and I used to walk from Newtowne Court where we lived (near the Poloroid R&D facility) past MIT to the Charles many summer day's and fished. We caught many catfish, eel's, carp and a ca-zillion herring. Fishing mostly next to the Mass Ave Bridge on the Cambridge side. I remember my father frying up one of the Catfish we caught and we tasted it back in the late 50's and dumped it out. We had alway's known that the fish in the charles were good for catching but nothing else yet we wanted to try one anyway. Never again.... So the polution of the Charles is not new and in fact goes back before the 50's To clean her up would take a massive and expensive effort on us all. I would love to be part of that process as the child in me is, at times, still out there fishing the Charles with my brother. I am a tad older now yet have never owned a boat of any kind till last fall. I will be taking her on the Charles this spring to rekindle some childhood memories with my brother and view Cambridge and Boston from a perspective we never thought could be possible when we were young. On a boat riding the Charles. -< Tuna Tail >- soon to be aboard the "FishTeasher"
149.8		ELWOOD::CARLIN	Balance	`Tue Mar 31 1992 09:35`	20
	I guess my memories are a week or two older than Mr. Landry's. I was born and raised in Allston and was a child in the '40s and '50s. When I was a kid, we used to swim in the Charles, from Magazine Beach. That used to be the section wqhere the MDC pool is, on Memorial Drive, near where Polaroid's original building is. I think it's Brookline street that comes out there. Not long after, I was still a little kid, they closed that beach adn wouldn't allow any swimming in the Charles. It never re-opened. They put in the pool, instead. I don;t even know if the pool is there anymore. But, there was a project to clean up the Charles a while back, wasn't there?? What ever happened to that? It's really a damned shame that river is so mucked up. leo p.s. I know very well where Newtowne Court is. Had a couple of friends from there. Tough neighborhood. Spent a lot of time in Cambridge as a teenager in the 50s. Richard's Drive in ????
149.9	ex	DELNI::OTA		`Tue Mar 31 1992 11:03`	6
	As far as current clean up plans, wouldn't any major cleanup of Boston Harbor require cleanup of its feeding tributaries? I thought the harbor clean up was a huge program. Brian
149.10	Shortsighted	MCIS5::GOODENOW		`Tue Mar 31 1992 20:29`	11
	Seems to me that there are two issues here: o should impact on fish and wildlife not be a valid concern in ALL cases where the ecology of a river may be radically changed - might be more than bass impacted by this - ???? o this facility is not a temporary one, but one that may be around for a generation or more, during which time we may really want a pristine Charles
149.11	Long term	GEMVAX::JOHNHC		`Wed Apr 01 1992 08:55`	4
	re: 10 You will never see a pristine Charles as long as the dam at the Science Museum is in place.
149.12		GNPIKE::HANNAN	Beyond description...	`Wed Apr 01 1992 10:12`	4
	The Charles used to have swimming on it near Brighton, My uncle drowned at a large beach there in the 1940's... Ken
149.13		LEDS::VESESKIS		`Wed Apr 01 1992 14:32`	23
	I started fishing the Charles about 3 years ago in the Natick area. I got some really good trout out of there which I put back for not only fear of pollution but I practice C&R whenever possible. The stretch we fish on does not have many houses so there is not people noises you have to deal with or other distractions. Last fall we even had a doe come to the edge of the river to drink and I could of touched her on the nose with the tip of my rod from the canoe. To think that all this has the possibility of going away because of this plant they are building is very disheartning. The section we fish in is fairly shallow and may now be even shallower when they put this thing up. There are not too many places around urban congested areas that you can go to for some peace and quiet and catch a lot of fish. Though this river is fairly polluted, especially as you get closer to the Atlantic, it is still a part of our ecosystem which must be protected and preserved as much as possible. I would like to able to continue taking my kids and friends there to enjoy it as much as I do. Well its time to hop off this soapbox. Ken
149.14	Don't get it	MCIS5::GOODENOW		`Wed Apr 01 1992 16:36`	21
	re: 11 I guess I don't understand what that has to do with the issue at hand. If one part of the river has gone to hell because of a dam, does that mean the rest of it can be carelessly given away to a power plant? And, the issue is not whether the river will be pristine, but whether the natural life that is apparently thriving there will continue to do so. This is not a 'spotted owl' situation in which ecological factors may doom a 'vital' industry, but one in which fish and wildlife were not given their due. And, because someone else's part of the river is a mess, that doesn't mean that I can't clean up my end. Surely we're not talking about giving up on the entire river because of a dam at one end... Maybe we should also be talking about options to the Science Museum Dam while we're at it. Stranger things have been torn down lately [and if you don't believe it keep an eye on the future of dams on the Columbia River]. Am I missing something here?
149.15	Oh, no, that was the other me writing that	GEMVAX::JOHNHC		`Wed Apr 01 1992 17:01`	45
	re: .14 Please don't get me wrong. I would be one your cheerleaders if you decide to fight this thing, and I can come up with a fair number of folks who are recognized experts who will offer testimony for you if you need it. I think it is a lost cause because the systemic pollution in the lower part of the river is there to stay unless that dam goes, after which it would probably take a decade or two for the river to flush itself out. In the meantime, the pollution's effects methodically move upstream as already poisoned fauna struggles to escape the pollution. The carp in the lower portion will eventually make their way to the upper portion, destroying that habitat as surely as pollution destroyed the lower section. You haven't told us what kind of power plant it is. Coal burning? Nuclear? If you haven't done so already, I suggest you contact The Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership Blaisdell House University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 545-2824 Also, call Maria Van Dusen at (617) 727-1614 x 360 She is the Riverways Program Coordinator for MA Fisheries & Wildlife. These people can put you in touch with the advocacy groups already combatting the power plant, if there are any. If there is none, they can put you in touch with others who are concerned so you can get your own advocacy group off the ground. I apologize for letting my apathy about the Charles (which I don to protect me from embroiling myself in a cause that is in all probability already lost) get to me and into this topic. Good luck. John H-C
149.16	Charles River Boat launches?	CAPL::LANDRY_D		`Fri Apr 03 1992 09:52`	20
	Does anyone know of where one can launch a 19' boat on the Charles that has resonalble parking? I went to Boston yesterday on business and was able to stop by Magazine Beach where the State Pool is on Memorial Drive. I wanted to see if the Boat Ramp I remembered from my childhood day's (50's)was still there. I drove into the parking area next to a playground by the bridge and I could see where the Boat Ramp "used to be". It had granite bolders blocking access to the River. There was a State truck there and the person was feeding geese and some ducks. I didn't have time to ask her if she knew of where there was a public boat ramp? The person I was with at the DEC Sales office in Boston said he used to launch somewhere in Watertown. Does anyone know? Our boat will be ready to go next week and I'd like to check out the Charles. -< Tuna Tail >- soon to be aboard the "FishTeaser"
149.17	ONLY ramp is in Watertown	CADSYS::GATULIS	Frank Gatulis 226-6140	`Fri Apr 03 1992 13:06`	13
	>> Does anyone know of where one can launch a 19' boat on the Charles that has >> resonalble parking? The ONLY place is the ramp in Watertown. About a mile away from Watertown Sq. It's on the other side of the river from where you went. The ramp is next to the MDC skating rink (I think it's Nonantum Street). All kinds of parking there (except 3rd & 4th of July!). Tip ... Heading towards Boston from the ramp is no problem but if you head towards Watertown, the river is too shallow once you get past the Yacht club. Frank
149.18	Charles River access Ramp in Watertown thanks	CAPL::LANDRY_D		`Fri Apr 03 1992 14:08`	9
	>>The ONLY place is the ramp in Watertown. About a mile away from Watertown Sq. Frank, Appreciate the quick response with directions etc Will get the "FishTeaser" out there in a few weeks and let you know how I did. -< Tuna Tail >-
149.19	Please supply data on the Ct. river???	DELNI::JMCDONOUGH		`Mon Apr 06 1992 09:57`	21
	Re .4 Could you supply some substantiation of the remarks about the CT. river in Springfield??? I was told by people in both the Mass and Ct. that this river had recovered dramatically from it's former polluted state...much of it due to a real effort to clean it up, and also by the fact that most of the mills that used to do the polluting had closed and dissapeared. In fact, the states both allegedly did tests on a number of catfish from this river and they were well below pollution limits or human consumption...and catfish are among the worst dollectors of pollution and usually among the last to be found clean.. I agree that the Ct. USED to be an extremely polluted river, but this river has been used as an example of what CAN be accomplished if sufficient effort and time is applied to the problem. I understand that many of Maine's former 'dead' rivers are now enjoying populations of stocked Atlantic Salmon where none had been able to survive for many, many years.. Maybe the Charles COULD be recovered....??? John McD
149.20	FWIW	GEMVAX::JOHNHC		`Mon Apr 06 1992 10:14`	16
	Yeah, John, the Charles COULD be recovered, if they got rid of the dam at the Science Museum. As it is now, the system pollution comes to rest in what is known as the "Charles River Basin," and the stuff buried in that bottom is reputedly a few stages higher on the toxicity scale than "hazardous." By the way, there is a cleanup of the Charles taking place this weekend at "Riverside." A bunch of students and faculty from the New England School of Law will be participating. If you're concerned about the Charles and want to actually DO something, you might find it rewarding to meet some environmentally active Legal Eagles. I can get more info about this Saturday's cleanup on the Charles, if you're interested. John H-C
149.21	All you have to do is look at the water...	SUBPAC::CRONIN		`Mon Apr 06 1992 10:42`	11
	RE: .19 Substantiation of remarks??? I'm a little confused. I compared the water quality of the headwaters of the Conn. River North of Pittsburg, NH with the water quality of the same river hundreds of miles and more than a few cities and towns downstream. Are you trying to tell me that you think there's no difference in quality??? I was trying to make the point that just because the Charles is filthy in Boston does not mean that it's filthy and not worth caring about in Milford. B.C.