29 



Mr. BiGFORD. Yes, I would- 



Mr. Studds. Probably adversely? 



Mr. BiGFORD. The current situation has adverse effects. The 

 future situation has adverse effects. Neither the current nor the 

 future situation have adverse effects that are so extensive that 

 they are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 

 So, we accept that there are effects. I think everybody does. That is 

 the price of our 



Mr. Studds. You think that moving from what we are doing now 

 to the teniporary discharge of primary effluent, as is currently con- 

 templated, would be an improvement of the situation? 



Mr. BiGFORD. It certainly will not be any worse. I think that has 

 been verified by the USGS models that we saw, and that is our con- 

 clusion. 



Mr. Studds. OK. I just wanted to make sure I understood what 

 you were contending. 



Now, if I may — I am going to first ask both Dr. Mayo and Mr. 

 Kraus whether there are questions. This can be just a dialogue. It 

 can actually be a conversation — as if we were real people instead of 

 at a hearing setting — whether there are observations you would 

 like to make, questions you would like to direct at any of your 

 fellow panelists or dialogue which you would like to enter into? 

 Stormy? 



Dr. Mayo. Yes. First, I wanted to reflect on what Mr. Shelley 

 had to say — and that is that, indeed, the impacts in this situation 

 look reversible, and you can straighten out problems if you see 

 them. It certainly seems to be reasonable. 



Mr. Studds. Use the mike, sir, if you can, please. 



Dr. Mayo. That probably does not apply to right whales. It is 

 conceivable — I am not saying it does apply here — but it is certainly 

 conceivable that an animal as imperiled as this one, that some- 

 thing could happen in its habitat that we are not looking at a re- 

 coverable situation. Maybe with clams and plankton, or whatever, 

 that is possible. I did have one question. It is one that has troubled 

 me. I want to embrace the concept of no jeopardy. I would like to 

 do that. It feels reasonable. The reasoning that I see in the biologi- 

 cal opinion continues to trouble me. That is the statement that, in 

 fact, we led off which was something to the effect that we expect — 

 we may expect effects from the new project, but it is judged that 

 they will not jeopardize the species. My problem is that we just do 

 not understand the animals or their relationship to the habitat and 

 it is hard for me to understand how we can make the leap from 

 saying there will be effects to knowing that there will not be jeop- 

 ardy. I would like to accept that; but I am curious, from NMFS 

 point of view, how one can say there will be effects on the species 

 but there will not be jeopardy. What is the missing bit of informa- 

 tion that assures that? 



Mr. BiGFORD. It sounds as if that is aimed in my direction. I took 

 one shot at trying to answering it. Maybe Colleen Coogan can offer 

 a slightly different perspective on the same answer that I already 

 provided and John Catena perhaps too. 



Mr. Studds. She is welcome to come up here and use one of these 

 mikes. Have a seat and identify yourself for the record, if you will. 



75-454 0-94-2 



