23 



tions made by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which will 

 help to minimize those risks and uncertainties, in some cases, en- 

 tirely eliminate them; in others just reduce them. 



As for the contingency planning, the alternative discharge sce- 

 nario studies, and additional biological studies, including the fo- 

 cused work on North Atlantic right whales, I would underline 

 again the comments of Scott Kraus and Stormy Mayo on the fact 

 that, unless you look at the canary, look in the cage once in a 

 while, you will not know if it has died or is even sick. I think the 

 fact of the matter is that the research protocol on right whales 

 right now is not adequate to determine the health of the canary up 

 and down its range, in this case, the right whale. 



On the issue of monitoring, we are strongly supportive of the 

 notion of an independent far-field monitoring effort and a focused 

 management effort, again, on the resource. The MWRA (and its 

 ratepayers) have been carrying the weight of most of the monitor- 

 ing in this resource area. That is not appropriate. This is a State- 

 wide resource. It is a national resource. As part of the estuaries 

 program, we had hoped there would be some efforts made to devel- 

 op a more comprehensive monitoring program and have it imple- 

 mented by now. That has not happened. Monitoring is absolutely 

 essential if we are able to act in time. As I said, I think this activi- 

 ty is a Massachusetts responsibility predominantly. 



On the level-of-treatment-before-discharge issue, as you may 

 know, we fought and lost this issue in Court. We had hoped to per- 

 suade the judge that the project could be built in a way that the 

 secondary would be online by the time the outfall was used. We did 

 lose that. 



The MWRA's recent decision to rehabilitate some of its existing 

 outfalls, however, raises the possibility of some different scenarios 

 that certainly are worth investigation; either partial or full inshore 

 discharge. I think, on a biological level, it is not immediately obvi- 

 ous to us that simply because those inshore outfalls are available 

 that they should be used. I think there are some studies that have 

 to be done and looked at the impact of doing that on a whole range 

 of resources and a decision made after those studies are concluded. 



The other aspect on secondary treatment I think we need to ex- 

 plore further is the capability of this plant to beat current permit- 

 ted primary treatment numbers. To the extent MWRA can dis- 

 charge its effluent from this plant at a higher level, it ought to do 

 so, and the permit ought to require that. 



Finally, I would also like to join with Scott and Stormy and 

 others and suggest that, as important as these chronic issues are, 

 with respect to endangered species issues, the Federal right whale 

 recovery plan still has not been seriously implemented. I think 

 that it is very important for the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

 across the range of this whale, to do everything in its power to im- 

 plement that recovery plan. I would call on this Subcommittee to 

 use whatever influence it can to facilitate that. 



Thank you very much. 



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

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Studds. Thank you very much, sir. 



I want to thank Senator Kerry for his time here. 



