105 



EVALUATION OF 



"NO A A FISHERIES ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

 SECTION 7 CONSULTATION - BIOLOGICAL OPINION" 



Iisued 8 September 1993 by the 



National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region 



Relative to the Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge 



Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the 

 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Outfall 



Robert D. Kenney, Ph.D. 



Graduate School of Oceanography 

 University of Rhode Island 



and 



Science Advisoiy Panel 

 Cape Cod Commission 



20 SEPTEMBER 1993 



I have reviewed the Biological Opinion (hereafter the Opinion) issued by the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service Northeast Region (NMFS-NER) as pan of their consultation under Section 7 of 

 the Endangered Species Act with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Aimy 

 Corps of Engineers (COE) relative to the issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

 System (NPDES) permit for the proposed relocation and upgrade of the Massachusetts Water 

 Resources Authority (MWRA) sewage outfall for the Boston mcaopolltan area. The Opinion 

 expresses the conclusions of NMFS-NER as to whether or not the operation of the new outfall is, 

 considering all relevant scientific and coimnercial data, likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the 

 continued surs'ival of endangered or threatened species or their crirical habitats. 



In the Opinion, NMFS concludes that issuance of the NPDES permit to MWRA is not likely to 

 jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or their critical 

 habitats, cither listed or proposed, in Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay, NMFS 

 acknowledges that operation of the MWRA outfall may adversely affect one or more of the listed 

 species/habitats. NMFS also acknowledges that scientific knowledge of all of the linkages which 

 might be involved in potential impacts on listed species is incomplete in many areas, but that the 

 Opinion must be made on the best available existing information. 



My review and evaluation primarily encompasses two aspects of the Opinion: 



(1) Is/are the conclusion(s) of the "no-jeopardy" Opinion justified in light of my own scientific 

 expertise and the scientific evidence prescntcd'summiirized in the Opinion, the earlier Biological 

 Assessment prepared by EPA rclauve to the outfall (hereafter the Assessment), the 10 July 1993 

 evaluation of the Assessment submitted by the Barnstable County Commissioners' Science 

 Advisory Panel (hereafter the SAP evaluation), and EPA's 25 August response to the SAP 

 evaluation (hereafter the EPA response)? 



