35 



to be the principle of the Endangered Species Act, which is that 

 somewhere in the intent and in subsequent Court cases, that the 

 benefit of the doubt should go to the species. One worries that this 

 is a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind. How do we ensure that that is 

 not true? I am not sure that the answers are all in. 



I guess, finally, it seems to me that the bottom line is perhaps 

 that even harm is not basically acceptable. 



Mr. Studds. Dr. Mayo? 



Dr. Mayo. Yes. Just a thought. That is that, at least something is 

 jeopardizing the right whale. That jeopardy is extreme, and we 

 should not be misled and think that we understand what that is. 

 We have some guesses, but I would suggest that in another century 

 we will have a very different view of our statements today. Some- 

 thing is jeopardizing the animals, and we do not know much about 

 what that is. 



We do know that one of the few places they still go to make a 

 living, and apparently those few that come here still do make some 

 living, is the bay system. Unfortunately, we do not understand the 

 relationship between the animals in that system, what they re- 

 quire, exactly how much jeopardy is provided by what happens 

 along the coastlines. It is sad that we cannot know all of that. We 

 do not and we must recognize that. Then we have to conclude that 

 the only thing we can do is take the best shot we can. The outfall 

 is likely that. At the same time, we must acknowledge that we do 

 not know exactly what is going to happen and we will monitor, be- 

 cause we do not know the cause of jeopardy, not because we under- 

 stand it. Thank you. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you. Mr. Kraus? 



Mr. Kraus. I actually want to throw a caveat at the whole moni- 

 toring issue. That is that we are concerned about endangered spe- 

 cies. I would not depend entirely, for example, upon right whales 

 as the canary. The reason for that is that it is an extremely small 

 population. There is a wide variation, random variation, which ap- 

 pears to be natural in its reproductive rates and its distribution. In 

 every habitat where we have a long-term study going, we have seen 

 years in which the number of animals in the habitat has been less 

 than a quarter of the average. Apparently these are natural vari- 

 ations. At least we have not been able to detect any changes. There 

 is a tremendous variation. In Cape Cod Bay there are some years 

 where there are very few animals, and some years there are nearly 

 half the population. So that, depending upon a single year's sight- 

 ing, you could, for example, put the outfall online and next year 

 see 150 right whales in Cape Cod Bay and conclude that the outfall 

 was a great thing for right whales and we should put them all over 

 the East Coast. That would be a mistake. The reason — you would 

 need to average this kind of information over a long period of time. 



I am not looking for welfare for scientists, but it is going to take 

 some commitment, and it is going to take a commitment that is a 

 little bit longer-sighted than the average Government commitment 

 to research and management. 



Mr. Studds. Well said. 



Mr. Butman? 



Mr. Butman. I would just like to echo what Stormy said, that 

 Massachusetts Bay is really a tremendously complex system. I 



