SAXTONS RIVER — Richard Schmidt's letter [“Anti-VY group tells slanted story about shad,” Letters, Sept. 19] has a few bloopers in it:
• Mr. Schmidt mischaracterizes our funding sources. A variety of foundations fund CRWC, none of which identifies as antinuclear. We never applied for grants to undertake antinuclear activities. These funding sources and the members of CRWC, through their dues and donations, have funded us to protect the river, not to mount an antinuclear campaign.
• Contrary to Mr. Schmidt's claim, biologists working for federal and state fisheries have voiced strong concerns about the effects of the heated water on resident and migrating fish.
In a March 2012 letter to the secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), the very fisheries biologist Mr. Schmidt referenced said, “River water temperature is one of the single greatest cues and physical variables to influence fish behavior, physiology, migration, movement, feeding, growth, maturation, spawning, egg and larval development, resilience to pathogens (stress) and survival.”
He went on to write that, “There are too many unknowns and concerns related to Entergy's thermal water discharge to assume that it is not having a negative impact on these juvenile migratory fish especially in the absence of any good science to show otherwise.”
• Lastly, Mr. Schmidt's letter implies that Florida fish could enter a New England river and vice versa. Diadromous fish return to their natal rivers, so fish from Florida are not coming to the Connecticut River and those in Florida are acclimated to the local natural temperature regimes. Not at all the case here: here the elevated temperatures shad face in the Connecticut River are anything but natural.
Mr. Schmidt challenges our science. In response, I would like to explain that CRWC commissioned three independent studies done by respected and experienced scientists to look at key aspects of the science Entergy used to justify its thermal pollution discharge.
When we commissioned the reports, it was a bit nerve wracking for us because we did not know the answers to our questions ahead of time. But we went ahead because we wanted to know the truth in the interest of the river.
What did we find?
Beyond the clearly problematic Entergy assertion that its discharge affects only the pool behind Vernon Dam, the company refuses to release the water quality model it relied on to justify its claim of no impact on the river.
Consequently, independent reviewers have not been able to evaluate their model.
After a close review of temperature data from in-river temperature loggers deployed by Entergy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is clear that the water temperature below the plant is hotter than Entergy's permit allows between 50 and 70 percent of the time.
There is no information, despite requests by CRWC to ANR, that shows Entergy has used the equation that governs its thermal discharge limits correctly because of missing data held by Entergy and not made available to ANR.
Entergy selected a heat-tolerant suite of fish that does not reflect the full makeup of species in the Connecticut River to test the impact of its thermal pollution discharge. We suggested a more robust methodology that uses current science and a more representative list of species based on an EPA-funded fishery survey of the river conducted in 2008 and 2009.
We made our reports available to ANR so its staff can evaluate them and so, if appropriate, the agency can use them as part of its work to draft a renewal permit limiting Entergy's thermal pollution discharge.
We have made these reports available to the public through news stories and on our website. We have made the reports available to Entergy and asked to meet with company officials to discuss our findings.
Entergy stonewalled us, and no conversations have taken place, except of course through the press via Mr. Schmidt's letter to the editor. Unfortunately, his letter relied only on bloopers and anecdotal quotes used out of context. What has not happened is an honest exchange with Entergy.
Based on our reports, we have again requested that ANR issue a permit that requires Entergy to use its cooling towers all of the time in a closed-cycle cooling mode. A closed cycle requirement would mean there would be no discharge of hot water to the Connecticut River.
This simple-enough request is backed by reliable critiques of the faulty information presented by Entergy. We hope others will make the same request of ANR.