94 



EVALUATION OF 



"NOAA FISHERIES ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

 SECTION 7 CONSULTATION: BIOLOGICAL OPINION" 



Iisued 8 September 1993 by the 



Northeast Marine Fitlwries Service Northeast Region 



Relative to the Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge 



Rlimination System (NPDES) Permit for the 

 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Outfall 



by the 



Science Advisory Panel (SAP) 

 Barnstable County Commissioner 



3 October 1993 



The Science Advisory Panel for the Barnstable County Commissioners has reviewed the 

 NOAA Fisheries Endangered Species Act Consultation Biological Opinion for the NPDES Permit 

 for the MWRA outfall. 



All SAP members agree with the finding of No Jeopardy. However, the constraints 

 leading to this finding, as enunciated in the Fact Sheet accompanying the Biological Opinion, were 

 new to the panel and had not been enunciated before to the SAP. The unanimous agreement of the 

 SAP members on the finding of No Jeopardy is linked closely with the Fact Sheet "ground rules". 



The SAP also strongly endoncs the need for the Conservadon Recommendations. It is our 

 understanding that these Conservation Recommcndarions will be applied in some sense as permit, 

 regulatory or legal requirements to the outfall operation. 



However, the SAP has some reservations about the adequacy and completeness of the 

 Conservation Recommendations. Nearly ever)' Panel member review has some specific comments 

 on the need for improved recommendations, or specifics for improving the recommendations. 

 Though not all repeated here, wc encourage NOAA to examine these SAP comments carefully. 



In particular, the Contingency Planning reconunendations appear reasonable and are to be 

 encouraged. However, Dr. Smayda points out the need to clarify the process for implementation 

 of the Contingency Planning: what measure will be used to determine adverse impacts on the 

 Endangered Species, and how will that tneasurc "trigger" specific actions? MWRA or EPA should 

 clarify this line of reasoning, so the public is assurad that tiiis contingency planning will be more 

 than just a paper snidy. 



The Additional Studies recommended also are encouraged. However, some Panel 

 members document the lack of focus of such studies. What are the goals and objectives of such 

 studies? What are the driving scientific questions? How will the specified studies achieve those 

 goals and answer those questions? Without a clearer indication of specific goals and questions, 

 tiicre can be litUe assurance that the studies will help resolve issues directiy related to Endangered 

 Species and the Consultation Process. Since the Consultation Process is a continuing process, no' 

 limited to the present time but continuing throughout the life of the outfall, it is imperative that th. 



