rate an Endangered Species Act biological assessment into its envi- 

 ronmental impact statement. That approach is specifically encour- 

 aged by regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act. 



Mr. Chairman, as you know, there has always been great public 

 interest in the proposed outfall. After EPA issued a draft Environ- 

 mental Impact Statement, it received a number of written com- 

 ments from the public and from environmental groups. Many of 

 these comments urge that the outfall be located even farther into 

 Massachusetts Bay than proposed by MWRA. 



After a detailed analysis, the EPA concluded that MWRA's pro- 

 posal was environmentally sound and that the outfall would not 

 have a significant long-term effect on Massachusetts Bay. Because 

 the effects of the outfall would be limited to a small area around 

 the diffusers, far removed from the preferred habitat of endangered 

 species, EPA concluded that such species would not be impacted. 



The record of decision for the final Environmental Impact State- 

 ment was issued in 1988 and construction of the outfall began in 

 1991. In late 1991 EPA began to draft a discharge permit for the 

 new outfall. The permitting process triggered requirements for a 

 new Endangered Species Act review. At the same time, residents of 

 Cape Cod began to raise questions about the potential impacts of 

 the outfall and various parties requested that EPA undertake a 

 comprehensive biological assessment under Section 7 of the Endan- 

 gered Species Act. 



Given the level of public concern, as well as the availability of 

 updated scientific information about endangered whales, EPA de- 

 cided that it would be appropriate to prepare a new assessment. 

 The development of the biological assessment was not an easy task. 

 The marine environment is a complex system. Our evaluation of 

 the potential impacts of the outfall required expertise in diverse 

 scientific fields. We relied on experts both inside and outside the 

 agency to assemble and evaluate a large body of scientific evidence. 

 The deadline of completion of the assessment had to be extended 

 twice because of the magnitude of the task. 



The final result of our analysis was a 300-page impact assess- 

 ment which cites more than 700 scientific sources, and concludes 

 that the outfall is not likely to adversely affect endangered or 

 threatened species, including the humpback and right whales. 



The biological assessment was forwarded to NMFS for their 

 review. On September 15th, NMFS issued its biological opinion 

 which presents an independent analysis of the scientific evidence. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Kotelly can be found at the end 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Studds. I hate to interrupt you, sir, but your red light is on. 

 If you will conclude. 



Mr. Kotelly. All right. I will conclude with that statement. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you very much. 



As you may have noticed, our distinguished Junior Senator has 

 arrived, along with a note saying that Congressman Saxton is 

 fogged in in Philadelphia. It serves him right. We will do it without 

 him. He is the ranking Republican member of this Subcommittee. 

 He will be fully apprised of what is going on. I am going to — be- 

 cause his own schedule is very packed today, I am going to inter- 

 rupt, if I may, with the permission of the witnesses, and allow Sen- 



