67 



Testimony of Douglas B. MacDonald/10-18-93/p. 2 



I would like to specifically address two key points contained in the NMFS opinion. 



Monitoring 



MWRA ratepayers are funding an extensive program of monitoring in Boston Harbor and 

 Massachusetts Bay. Samples are collected 2 1 4 days each year— almost half of these days are spent 

 sampling in Massachusetts Bay. We collect 10,000 samples which yield 200,000 chemical results 

 annually. Analyses are published regularly and widely reviewed, and our water quality model is 

 continuously fine-tuned with the testing results. Our annual outfall monitoring budget is $ $2.5 

 million. These investments have leveraged about $1 million in annual funding from the U.S. 

 Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Sea Grant 

 program. In addition, the Mass. Bays Program has contributed another $1 million. 



Although our ratepayers will continue to do their part, opportunities must be created for others to 

 participate. We are heartened that up to $200,000 for monitoring and research will be available 

 through the newly-designated Stellwagon Bank National Marine Sanctuary (thanks to 

 Congressman Studds' efforts). EPA has received a special $400,000 appropriation to study 

 eutrophication in Massachusetts and Cape Cod bays. 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Open Space Bond Bill includes $7 million for coastal 

 monitoring, and EPA's Environmental Mapping and Assessment at both a national and regional 

 scale could provide additional monitoring. We have even been involved in discussions about 

 converting defense dollars and technology to serve the peacetime needs of the marine environment. 



Contingency Planning 



In anticipation of the NMFS opinion, and for our own operational purposes, the MWRA has been 

 exploring so-called "contingency" options in the hopefully unlikely event of either a physical 

 disruption to the outfall or treatment system, or a negative biological impact in the Bay. As 

 highlighted in the Opinion, we will pay particular attention to any indication of harmful impacts on 

 the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. We are focusing on the concept of "trigger" planning, 

 which would elicit progressive responses firom the MWRA as a result of findings from ongoing 

 monitoring efforts. Advanced treatment options at Deer Island-while we have no reason to believe 

 they will be necessary-are already being developed, and related institutional, environmental and 

 cost consequences are being analyzed. We believe the "trigger" approach to contingency planning 

 is both cost-effective and environmentally responsible. 



In conclusion, the NMFS opinion provides a level of expert review which allows the MWRA's 

 project to go forward, in hopes of delivering on its promise of a healthier marine ecosystem for the 

 harbor and the bay. We look forward to continuing our partnership with all concerned agencies, 

 organizations and individuals to implement the conservation recommendations and to make sure the 

 new facilities work— both for our customers and the environment we are charged with protecting. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 



