no 



SUMMARY 



The proposed Contingency Planning, Additional Studies and Monitoring 

 elements of the Conservation Recommendetien of the NOAA Biological Opinion 

 were found to be too limited. RecommgndBtlons for additional activities in each 

 category are given. 



It Is recommended that the Maeeachusetta Water Resource 

 Administration be required to prepare a Quality Assurance Statement indicating 

 procedures to be followed to establish retrofitting needs and criteria to be 

 applied should mitigation Initiatives be needed. 



It Is recommended that the proposed focus on additional physical and 

 chemical studies be expanded significantly to include relevant biological 

 studies which are seriously neglected, in the Additional Studies element. 



The proposed monitoring effort is very Inadequate to the need for 

 quantitative, process-oriented information, and should be signlficantiy upgraded 

 to meet the needs for, and Intended application of such data. 



INTRODUCTION 



NOAA's Biological Opinion that the discharge of treated sewage into 

 Massachusetts Bay is unlikely to jeopardize the existence of any endangered or 

 threatened species in the area can not be refuted, given the criteria used by 

 NOAA to define 'jeopardy*, i.e.. an appreciable likelihood that a reduction of 

 'both the survival and recovery of a listed species In the wild [will occur] by 

 reducing the reproduction, numbers or distribution of that species'. NOAA 

 acknowledges, how/ever, undescribed affects may occur. This reviewer 

 contends that the occurrence of such undescribed affects, or other presently 

 unrecognired affects of potentially jeopardizing oonsequences likewise can not 

 be refuted based on available data. Thus, this intricate and complex ecosystem 

 problem, intractable from available scientific information, presents a Gordlan 

 Knot. Clearly, existing law places the burden of proof on the plaintiff, rather than 

 the defendant, in essence, this represents a decision making strategy 

 seemingly based on legal models developed for conflict-resolution of human 

 interactions, rather than based on an environmental or ecosystem model. In 

 short, I accept NOAA's Biological Opinion as one based on legal criteria which 

 may or may not be warranted by available scientific evidence. This critique will 

 therefore take the form of evaluating three of NOAA's Conservation 

 Recommendations: Contingency Planning. Additional Studies and Monitoring, 

 rather that entering into scientific rebuttal of the Biological Opinions presented 

 by NOAA. 



