21 



The county's SAP agreement with the NMFS no-jeopardy finding 

 is vaUd only — and I emphasize only — under the assumptions re- 

 garding the process as outlined in the fact sheet accompanying the 

 biological opinion. I would like to quote the SAP report. "All SAP 

 members agree with the finding of no jeopardy, however, the con- 

 straints leading to this finding, as annunciated in the fact sheet ac- 

 companying the opinion, were new to the panel, and had not been 

 enunciated before the SAP. The agreement of SAP members on the 

 finding of no jeopardy is linked with these ground rules." 



Finally, we believe very strongly that the analysis which forms 

 the basis of this opinion is flawed, in that it did not consider 

 whether existing conditions in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays 

 are contributing to the threat to the endangered and threatened 

 species and their habitats, thus whether NMFS should approve any 

 action which may also pose a threat. Both the biological assess- 

 ment and the opinion describe the degradation that has occurred in 

 the bays and the impacts that will result from the discharge. This 

 is particularly going to reference the right whale recovery plan 

 which refers to the general degradation of coastal marine habitats 

 and may ultimately be the most important factor affecting the re- 

 covery of the northern right whale. 



We praise the biological opinion for its thorough treatment of a 

 number of the issues. We believe that all of the conservation rec- 

 ommendations and additional studies are critical to the determina- 

 tion of whether future operations will jeopardize the continued ex- 

 istence. We emphasize that these should be completed prior to dis- 

 charge for those that are called for. 



In addition to the recommendations, we would like to highlight 

 four things I will summarize quickly. First is an independent far- 

 field monitoring program, which must be developed and imple- 

 mented prior to the operation of the outfall; that meaningful 

 change in the environmental conditions which affect threatened 

 and endangered species must be defined; clear goals and objectives 

 must be identified for monitoring to be meaningful; and a manage- 

 ment process is totally inadequate without a definition of meaning- 

 ful change. 



Second, we agree on the importance of contingency plans, and we 

 recommend that contingency plans also address needed actions as a 

 result of any breakdown in the facility — and we emphasize specific- 

 ity, in terms of allowed treatment levels, timeframes, and alterna- 

 tive upgradings; third, we are concerned about the effect of growth 

 on the system, the opinions, findings, note the lack of consideration 

 given to growth. We believe that productive growth should be in- 

 cluded. 



Finally, I would like to note quickly that we understand that 

 there are additional costs here. We believe that costs should be 

 shared. We are concerned that what is being addressed here is an 

 issue of assessing difficulties and of impacts in a remote location 

 and understanding them before it is too late. We agree that dead 

 whales are not a good measure of adverse impacts; but it is unclear 

 as to what the appropriate indicators are and how they are to be 

 measured. We feel we are still left with a critical question unan- 

 swered, which is how do we prevent harm from becoming jeopardy, 

 and jeopardy from becoming disaster? 



