108 



nearfield and farficld conditions, and M-6 with monitoring cumulative effects over wider scales. 

 The contingency planning Recommendation requires EPA and ODE to submit to NMFS, prior to 

 NPDES permit issuance, a list of possible mitigation measures which might be instituted if 

 necessary. In addition, my recommendation was directiy cited in the Opinion (p.47) in discussion 

 of strong cautionary measures required because of the uncertainties in potential impacts generated 

 in the nearfield and transported to the farfield. 



(v) Further reductions of effluent concentrations of toxic substances: Recommendation P-3 states 

 tiiat EPA should require such reductions by MWRA. 



It would be possible to construct a similar list of findings from the SAP evaluation and point out in 

 detail how the Conservation Recommendations in the Opinion may or may not address each point. 

 However, I don't feel that would add much to this evaluation. I am quite satisfied that the 

 Conservation Recommendations effectively deal with most of the Panel's criticisms of the 

 Assessment and the outfall project. I must add two qualifications to my favorable evaluation, 

 however: (i) I have not seen the MWRA monitoring plan referred to in Recommendation M-1. My 

 favorable evaluation of the Opinion is based on the presumption that monitoring, as currently 

 designed in the MWRA proposed scheme with the improvements and expansion specified in tiie 

 Conservation Recommendations, will be sufficicnUy comprehensive, (ii) I would feel even more 

 assured if I were more certain that all of the. Conservation Recommendations will become explicit 

 conditions of the NPDES permit. Some of the Recommendations contained explicit language 

 relative to enforceability; I think that should apply to all of them. 



